Posts by codejunky

Re: Technical marvel, but it's the economics, stupid

@LogicGate

"May I suggest that you stop bombasting with the repeated use of "unreliables".. It is easier to have a discussion without name-calling."

Then what can I call the unreliables? When I am name calling I say they are monuments to a sky god in the hope that it farts and mirrors for a sky god in hope that it smiles down. That is the name calling piss taking of technology that is not mature enough to be deployed on the grid right now.

When I say unreliables I am differentiating between green, faux green and sky god stuff. Green tech includes things like geothermal and hydro and faux green being Drax wood chip burning. I used to say green tech meaning the useless monstrosities of the new religion but then people would bring up things like hydro (quite rightly) because I wasnt clear enough.

So in place of saying 'wind and solar' every time I say unreliables, which is accurate and honest and only upsets dreamers who dislike the fact. So what alternative but truthful word do you think I should change it to?

Re: Technical marvel, but it's the economics, stupid

@LogicGate

"the nukes that codejunky insists on as being the only reliable option"

Just to correct, I dont insist nukes are the only reliable option. We have plenty of reliable generation methods but the deployable ones get blacklisted for the MMCC co2 theory reaction. We know how to create electricity by various means. We also know how to do so reliably. We also have people who have the believe that humanity must be destroyed, modernisation rejected, wealth a sin, and romanticises peasantry.

Re: Technical marvel, but it's the economics, stupid

@Len

"The thing is that the fuel cost only plays a part role in the total cost of producing a MWh. Obviously fuel cost for wind and solar plants is zero per MWh whereas gas or uranium or coal cost money but the total cost of construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning etc. is where the real expenditure lies."

Sounds like a lot of theory in the comment however in practice Germany has severe issues for applying unreliables and had to fall back on coal and nukes. France uses nukes and keeps the lights on for the surrounding countries that use unreliables.

It seems the push for unreliable energy and banning working forms of energy generation (fossil fuel) has backed everyone into a corner to suddenly accept nukes as the option that is left. Hell the only way to get monuments to a sky god in the UK was for government subsidy and abusing the market to favour unreliables and 25% of our energy bills went to subsidising the nonsense. The outcome was not falling energy prices. They went up.

And thats before the war which showed how little the unreliables matter because it sits on the availability of gas generation.

Re: You sure are preoccupied by Trump and Musk!

@Jellied Eel

You will never get them to admit being wrong but reading your factual responses to the irrational 'typical answer LOL' comments put a smile on my face. Have a great day

Re: You sure are preoccupied by Trump and Musk!

@DS999

"Nevermind that Trump is committing high crimes like espionage and insurrection"

Is he? I thought this was the claim yet to be proven. Kinda like the certainty of him working with Russia thanks to the Steele dossier. Your remember that damp squib? Or the 2 damp squib indictments. Remember this active investigation has already had leaked photo's of documents showing classified markings (isnt it illegal to leak this? Could even affect the ability to prosecute).

Of course it is inciting insurrection to tell people to protest peacefully. Just as a sealed building which can only be opened from the inside let people in and actively escorted people around. An unarmed woman was shot by the police and an investigation swiftly brushed under the carpet. Did they ever discover who placed pipe bombs? Or investigate the 'totally not FBI actors' who were caught out? So on so on. But at least the dem house put on a show kangaroo court for entertainment.

Like Trump or not the stinking desperate efforts to attack Trump should terrify any American. This can be done to anyone the state decides it doesnt like.

Re: Big Sigh

@Mitoo Bobsworth

"Is this stupid game still going on?"

What does the democrats or established rulers have to oppose Trump? Ignore the republicans for the moment, what do the dems have? A sitting president who is a vast liability at best especially as his son is easily trashing the Biden reputation. So if not Biden who could the dems run? Anyone? Is there a single candidate anyone would want to vote for?

But the next best thing for the established rulers is a republican candidate, except none of them have the pull to win against Trump. He is vastly ahead in the polls and after many attempts to stop him running through legal means they can only go after his reputation. Except as with the impeachments there is a requirement to demonstrate he did wrong and sufficient enough for prosecution. As with the Alvin Bragg show, they have nothing so can only try to stretch Trumps resources and keep slinging mud.

I am not sure Trump would be allowed to win. Can you imagine the potential clean out of the corruption? The serious and vengeful removal of those who dedicated so much time and effort to attack Trump. But the weaponised state should not be cheered on by Americans, they should all be seriously concerned by this. Even if they hate Trump the fact that such blatant and obvious vilifying and attacks by the state could be used against any citizen should be scary as hell.

Re: He's blaming rival Brexiteers, not

@AC

"To date, there has not been a single instance in which isolationist behaviour has actually benefitted a group, region or country other than for political machinations."

This is the perspective issue. Remainers argue leavers are isolationist. Leavers look to rejoin the rest of the world.

"The UK had the best of both worlds"..."It was a bloody good deal that many in the EU were rather envious of."

Another interpretation of this being that the EU was so wonderful, stunning and amazing that we in the UK refused to fully join it. The remainers panicking that leave would mean we never rejoin because we as a country would not agree to fully joining the EU. We saw this argument play out when people were absolutely gagging to be part of the Eurozone and we eurosceptics argued against it based on known economics and reality. I havnt heard the term eurosceptic in years as we were right.

Re: Good old Brexit

@AC

Assuming you are the same AC as made that comment previously, this is actually in the right context of Roland6's comment. So yes.

Re: Reminds me of China

@David Hicklin

Thanks for posting but they dont care. Its one of my pet troll cowards that follows me like a stray dog begging for a scratch. If this topic came up in future and I said something similar they would post the same reply.

Re: Reminds me of China

@blackcat

"Battery storage and pumped storage can overcome short term variability but there is no solution for the longer term variability such as very little sun during the winter."

We might be in for a bad winter too as the coal plants we have been relying on for the last few winters are not going to be available this winter. They are finally being closed down. I wonder how long until the green dream is dropped so we can actually keep the lights on.

Re: Hmm

@Dinanziame

"Do tell us"

Really? I didnt think it was controversial to not believe in the benevolent regulator. I do hope you are trolling

Re: Hmm

@Ken G

Nice marketing speech but thats not really how it goes with regulation

Re: Hmm

@AC

"I imagine that any technical victory would result in an update to the regulation with a more detailed definition of what a VLOP is."

Probably because regulators have to keep themselves busy somehow. There is some amusement watching regulators trip over their own regulation.

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@GioCiampa

"Had anyone else stood against Ursula - there WOULD have been an election... just because nobody did, doesn't mean the processes aren't there."

So there would be an election if there was anyone out of 27 countries of mountains of bureaucrats would stand to run the EU? A contest that would have existed if the EU had used the usual spitzenkandidat process. A process that was already criticized anyway for not being particularly democratic.

Basically in the UK instead of an election as would normally happen just install Farage (pick anyone you dont like) and install them as the only runner in a contest nobody else can run.

"Again... what's the difference?"

A massive difference. In the UK we vote for a party, a party gets elected. So we had Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak but the elected party is still elected. It hasnt been replaced by labour just because, there would need to be an election. The EU has presidents (so many) and you seem pretty happy to accept she was installed.

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@AC

"Are you recovering from a brain hemorrhage codejunky? Do you need help with basic concepts like "UK" and "worldwide"? Just let us know if that's the case and we'll send you the Ladybird Book of Brexit or a similar book at the same reading level."

Are you the AC who mentions inflation in the UK as caused by brexit when inflation is happening around the world? Maybe your books are duff or you need to read them yourself

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Wasn't this something that was touted as a benefit of Brexit?"

No

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@GioCiampa

"We didn't vote for Rishi in EXACTLY the same way as we didn't vote for Ursula"

Our recollection seems to be wildly different. Was there an election for the Tories? Was there any election for Ursula? How many parties could be voted for in the UK? How many candidates were presented as an option for EU President?

"he was the only candidate left standing after the 1922 Committee shenanighans."

I too agree Truss should have stayed but a lot of the country seemed to disagree.

"What's the difference?"

Imagine the UK isnt particularly democratic. Then it says it will try to appear more democratic. Then the only option is Corbyn for example. No party, no options just Blair. Nobody to choose just an installed leader such as Boris. I dont care who you would least like, whoever it is just gets put in without any option. Big difference. You might dislike the UK system, feel free I am not defending it, but it is very different than an unpopular and not very good politician just taking the slot.

Imagine comes the next 'election' the only option is Farage and no other options at all, not even a question asked, just installed.

Re: Weird perspective

@Elongated Muskrat

"@CJ, when you can present something that even remotely resembles evidence to support your assertions, and indeed respond to valid points raised by others, without switching arguments, or repeating false ones, then you can join the adults' table."

So I am guessing you are parroting then.

Re: Weird perspective

@Elongated Muskrat

"When we argue against such people, we are not expecting or even hoping to change their minds. We argue against demonstrably incorrect views, so that other readers, who we assume are not idiots, can see that those views are false, and see the evidence against them."

Did you lift that from one of my previous posts or have you come to the same conclusion?

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@GioCiampa

"Are you talking about Prime Ministers?"

You dont vote for a PM, you vote for a party. And you actually get regular votes.

"How much of the population directly voted for this PM to assume power? (Arguably none at all, given MPs only indicated support rather than actually voting, but even then it was only a few hundred)

The one before that? (Around 142,000 as it went to the party membership)

Before that? (Around 139,000)"

And how many voted for Ursula? Zip zero nadda. Instead she was the only candidate put forward in a very dodgy looking backroom deal and you will like it. Being at a time when the EU was banging on about tying to be more democratic

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@Elongated Muskrat

"and it is also pretty obvious that whet is being referred to here is the additional 50% food price inflation in the UK that brexit has been established to have caused"

Established? Tell me more. According to the AC I was replying to the claim is a third of the rise is being blamed on brexit instead of printing vast amounts of money and buggering the economy for covid.

"Nobody is claiming that the UK leaving the EU has caused global food prices to rise, so you are arguing against a straw man there."

I know they are not. Instead they are blaming inflation on brexit when there is an inflation problem around the world. So why would countries who reacted in a similar way over covid suffer a similar problem? The answer is apparently covid policies except for the UK which is magically down to brexit? It makes no sense.

"It has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has caused UK food prices to rise more than global food prices, so to claim otherwise means taking the path of "unreasonable doubt"."

Nope. Inflation being a disease of money is fairly established. Instead we had farmers complaining that they would go out of business because we would be importing cheaper than they can produce.

"We're wise to you, we've seen you here before..."

Then do better

Re: Citation please ?

@Lars

"Yes no doubt but then again what about the people."

Living in one of the richest countries in the world.

"GDP (PPP) 2023 estimate per capita $56,471 (28th in the world)"

195 countries in the world. So yes. Also in your list of countries you added European Union, it isnt a country its just an organisation. But the UK is 6th in the world and yet look at the size of the UK.

"I have no need to downplay the importance of Britain, but I wonder if there is in the world a people more prone to over estimate themselves like the English."

What am I overestimating? So far I am right and please read the comment I am replying to for context. You seem to not understand at all the point of my comment so maybe you didnt read the one I replied to?

Re: Citation please ?

@anothercynic

"I come from a country (as one of those filthy immigrants from the colonies that Mogg and his ilk so detest) that is totally inconsequential when it comes to any economic or political power in the world, I can tell you that my life experiences were valuable in voting to remain."

Without any intention of insult, only to comment on your potential perspective- you mention African countries would want to be part of the EU and you are from a country of little consequence economically or politically which influenced your vote to remain (as makes sense). However I am from the UK, a country that isnt inconsequential economically, politically or militarily. I mention the last part because Western Europe relies on the UK and France militarily and France is only so important now because the UK left the EU (they quickly jumped to try and fill the void we left in the EU).

This country holds the 2nd largest financial centre in the world, 1st in Europe. For all the efforts made by the EU and its members the UK has held on and is the place in Europe for financial services. So much so that for all the puffed chest bravado of the EU stopping its people from using London they backed down when realising it would put the EU in recession.

All that is to say that we are not inconsequential or irrelevant and have considerable potential in this world. A politically and economically inconsequential country might be happy to give itself over to be run by another layer of bureaucratic and political nonsense because that might improve their situation potentially. The equation is different when its one of the richest countries in the world, who has duff politicians and can see more of them trying to run our country with even less care for it.

You might note that there seems to be considerable support for being part of a trade bloc with Europe but not to be subservient to their bureaucratic and political nonsense. We have enough of that here

Re: Be proud

@MJI

"Ah the latest failed brexshit religion"

Eh?

Re: Lots of AC's agreeing the remain camp.

@John Smith 19

"Curious."

I am interested to know why as well. I know after brexit a number of cowards popped up supporting remain to trot out the FUD that was disproven and repeating the usual lies but without a handle. I just assumed some remainers felt some shame, some zealots wanted to troll and some trolls saw their opportunity.

"Most remainers have been quite open about their views."

They were but then so were Euro supporters back when they supported joining the single currency (for mostly the same reasons) and were shown wrong. Now try finding them, I know of one.

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@LionelB

"Seems clear enough; the experts are the people who research, design, implement and evaluate these systems. Everyone else is an "expert"."

Which muddies the water a lot when the experts disagree to which then depending on your beliefs you listen to experts while the others listen to "experts". And it gets worse when the experts argue against the science! For some experts are the ones with lots of qualifications, some with experience and some because the so called expert looks respectable.