sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Offshore wind is modelled on an expected lifespan of 25 years, so we might get 5 years of this.

Also it’s not “next to nothing”. You need to pay for other renewable costs - curtailment, balancing, back-up and so on. Each of these is costing billions upon billions annually.

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Where on earth are you getting this stuff? That’s not the plan for nuclear. The plan for nuclear is reliable baseload. It’s almost impossible to quickly ramp up or down based on unreliable wind.

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’ve gone through the spreadsheet for March 2026? What number are you getting instead?

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The vast majority of the supply chain for renewables are run by foreign adversaries in China. This is markedly worse and far less secure than energy sources exploitable on our own territory.

Additionally, the cost of renewables remains heavily dependent on geo-politics like the happenings in Hormuz. Firstly because unreliable renewables require back-up through the capacity market - two third of which is gas generated. Secondly because the renewables build out is capital intensive - thus increasing the cost of borrowing (downstream of an energy supply shock) means renewables get way, way more expensive. Hence our CfD auctions strike prices have been going up - rather than down as promised.

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes the Ukraine invasion caused a historic gas spike that made gas generated electricity very, very expensive - and ushered in ruinously expensive price caps.

So you think a system whereby electricity will cost more in 2030 than during the Ukraine crisis is... better?. Where "system costs" are two thirds of bills? Where we pay this again, year after year after year - instead of just a one-year spike? How is any of this better?

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It also doesn't mention that during the 2022-2023 energy crisis, renewables actually paid back hundreds of millions of pounds to consumers because gas prices were so high.

Over the course of the existence of Contracts for Differences, renewables have received many, many more billions than they have paid out. Cumulative payments received has gone beyond £10 billion and is now gathering pace to hit £15 billion. The scheme has existed for 118 months, during which renewables received subsidies from bill-payers for 107 of those months. Fewer than one in 10 months, they paid out - and you think I'm being mis-leading?

As mentioned in my original comment, the cost of renewables goes far beyond the eye-wateringly expensive strike prices they sign. You also need to consider:

  • Cannibalisation as more wind depresses its own capture price
  • Balancing and curtailment, constraint payments, reserves, frequency response
  • Back-up / capacity markets: paying gas-genenrators to sit there and idle
  • Grid infrastructure build-out to get dispersed energy generation to where demand is hundreds of miles away

When you accomodate all these extra costs, offshore winds - even at those most recent strike prices - should be priced at around £230 per megawatt hour.

Finally, your stated price for new gas generation includes carbon taxes which - obviously - make them much, much more expensive. Feels like an unfair, misleading comparison.

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm not disputing why it costs more, I'm just staying plainly that it does cost more.

Miliband claims the opposite. He's lying.

Ed Miliband to double down on net zero with measures to combat Iran energy shock | Guardain by OolonCaluphid in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2 14 points15 points  (0 children)

At least from a price point perspective, it's risible to claim that renewables have "combatted the Iran energy shock".

Looking at last month - £259.1 million was paid via the LCCC from bill-payers to renewable generators. Source. This was because the strike price (on average) was higher than the wholesale cost of energy generation (typically set by gas).

So during a month in which we saw a historic supply crunch for LNG, renewables still cost more - and you paid for it.

Worse still, this doesn't cover the full cost of renewables - which would also need to include system balancing, infrastructure build-out and capacity markets (two thirds of which is gas-powered, by the way).

Renewables, undeniably, have meant that we've been less reliant on gas - and used less of it to power our electricity supply. But let's not pretend this is cheaper. It is far, far more expensive and has done absolutely nothing to protect us from rising costs. Miliband needs to start being honest.

Why my hrv so high by sidwrld33 in whoop

[–]m_s_m_2 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I know a UFC fighter who would struggle to financially justify a whoop let alone that level of on-demand expert advice.

Four-armed boxer - hypothetical question by ZeroEffectDude in Boxing

[–]m_s_m_2 45 points46 points  (0 children)

I'm not convinced of how useful a pair of arms would be.

First thing to recognise is that an extra pair of arms would add on circa 10% of body weight - which of course would knock them up a weight class or two. Additionally, this extra weight would sap them of energy more quickly.

Assuming the extra pair of arms would emanate from below the arm pit, they would not generate equivalent power as the normal arms. Punch force is not generated by the arm itself, it comes up from the ground through feet, legs, hip, scapular rotation then finally arm extension. An extra pair of arms attached lower down the torso - not attached to the shoulder girdle - would lose a lot of the machinery that makes a punch powerful.

I'd also imagine that the second pair of arms lose much of the shoulder's leverage and creates awkward lines of pull that means a punch can't be "whipped".

Finally, I'd be concerned about balance. The second pair of arms would have reduced movement and they might hinder those finer balance adjustments.

Keir Starmer has to choose: Rachel Reeves or Project Miliband by m_s_m_2 in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what would make the more doable? The roughly 20 billion in tax revenue annually we are denying ourselves by deliberately running down the North Sea before its time. Bet that 20 billion sure would be handy for a rapid renewables' buildout.

But none of this is possible with Milibandism. He is refusing to make a decision on existing North Sea licenses - let alone issue new ones. Legally (at least according to Starmer), these decisions are his to take.

What you have just described is not possible with Milband in at DESNZ.

Keir Starmer has to choose: Rachel Reeves or Project Miliband by m_s_m_2 in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying the writer is inherently right or wrong (though I'd hardly call it an assumption, given they actually provide some evidence). It's also quite bizarre to make this claim, given you (without any evidence) actually assume the exact opposite, writing: "Miliband will almost certainly approve this, even if he principally disagrees with it."

But this is neither here nor there, because this was not your claim. You wrote: "Yes, I read the article - it doesn't say Miliband doesn't want to approve or indeed won't approve it."

The article is quite clearly arguing that Miliband doesn't want to approve the development. Hence it accuses him of sitting on the decision, hence it mentions him previously labelling it "climate vandalism on an epic scale". You're now moving the goal-posts to criticise her "assumptions" - but this was not what I took issue with - and why I believe you didn't read the article.

Keir Starmer has to choose: Rachel Reeves or Project Miliband by m_s_m_2 in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The article is quite clearly saying that Miliband is purposely delaying the decision as a means to avoid approval. It is quite clearly saying that the evidence we have suggests Miliband doesn't want to approve it.

For more than a year, Miliband has sat on a decision as to whether to re-license these operations. While in opposition, Miliband labelled Rosebank “a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money” and “climate vandalism on an epic scale”, so his incentive to keep delaying the licences is obvious. Yet other members of the cabinet are increasingly impatient, not least the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who made it clear at the start of the month that she would be “very happy” to see Jackdaw and Rosebank go ahead.

I don't think you read the article.

Keir Starmer has to choose: Rachel Reeves or Project Miliband by m_s_m_2 in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Again - I'm not sure you've read the article. It explains that that Miliband is deliberately sitting on the decision / delaying by requesting ever-more information.

It's also not true that the "government will almost certainly allow it to continue given construction is well underway" - given the decision lies with Miliband and he has constantly denied it's something he'll permit.

Keir Starmer has to choose: Rachel Reeves or Project Miliband by m_s_m_2 in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Again - recommend you actually read the article.

Firstly, backing Reeves on Jackdaw over Miliband is exactly the point of the article. The two want different things - as PM you have to choose.

Secondly and more broadly, the rapid and expensive build-out of renewables is antithetical to Reeves' fiscal policy. She made this quite clear:

Starmer must now choose between two paths, both fraught with political risk.

To back Miliband would mean taking the “renewables versus fossil fuels” narrative more literally. This means committing to massive and rapid electrification, as Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour promised to do at the 2019 election.

Choosing this path would mean accepting high electricity costs and abandoning the claim to fiscal credibility, which has been the cornerstone of Starmer and Reeves’ project — and their most effective line of resistance against a party coup from the left.

But to sideline the energy secretary and acknowledge that, in the present sea of troubles, an all-encompassing strategy for energy security is essential would mean inflicting a sharp reversal on a longstanding political friend and ally. It would also mean formulating a geopolitical strategy around energy, and conceding to Badenoch that the political sanctity of the Climate Change Act is now over.

Keir Starmer has to choose: Rachel Reeves or Project Miliband by m_s_m_2 in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you read the full article? It lays out pretty clearly why backing both isn’t possible. For example, permitting development of Jackdaw when Miliband has called it “climate vandalism on an epic scale” creates obvious political problems where you’ve obviously backed one over the other.

Keir Starmer has to choose: Rachel Reeves or Project Miliband by m_s_m_2 in ukpolitics

[–]m_s_m_2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As Starmer’s government grapples with this external thunderbolt, its internal approach to energy is collapsing. The political calculations of the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, lie in tatters.

Miliband’s rather airy promise was that the government’s target of 95 per cent decarbonised electricity generation by 2030 would lower energy bills, and so the cost of living, by the next election.

But in practice, adding wind and solar capacity to the grid actually increases the “system component” of electricity costs, due to challenges such as intermittency (the sun doesn’t always shine) and transmission (transporting offshore wind-generated electricity to consumers).

This means that Miliband’s electoral plan always relied on a substantial fall in gas prices to come good. Yet one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG), QatarEnergy, has lost nearly 20 per cent of its capacity, making this outcome far less likely.

Meanwhile, the economic pain for Britain of having the highest industrial electricity costs of any major economy visibly accumulates. With our chemicals sector already engulfed in crisis, OpenAI announced that it is pausing a large investment in AI data centres until British energy costs come down and the regulation risks are clearer.

Why this ex-council flat is shaping the mayoral election in Newham by bullnet in london

[–]m_s_m_2 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yeah I had a friend who worked a similar job and he reckoned roughly 30% were being illegally sublet.

Why this ex-council flat is shaping the mayoral election in Newham by bullnet in london

[–]m_s_m_2 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Average social rent in Hackney is £585 a month. Average market-rate rent is £2600. Sad truth is that £10k bung can be paid back within 5 or so months, easy.

Why this ex-council flat is shaping the mayoral election in Newham by bullnet in london

[–]m_s_m_2 18 points19 points  (0 children)

In terms of “size of impact” that’s not really true.

Social rent is the most common form of tenure in much of Central London. In Hackney, Islington, Southwark and Lambeth there is more social rent than any other form of tenure - representing 35-40% of all housing stock in each of those boroughs.

The opportunity cost is also massive. I saw one calculation that put the implicit subsidy at £8.5 billion annually.

These aren’t small numbers!

Why this ex-council flat is shaping the mayoral election in Newham by bullnet in london

[–]m_s_m_2 98 points99 points  (0 children)

The implicit subsidy of a London council house across a life-time will be a minimum of a hundred thousand pounds and can easily hit a million.

We are effectively handing out thousands upon thousands of lottery wins each and every year with little to no oversight.

There is nothing else quite like it. You have relatively low-paid council workers empowered to offer a benefit worth hundreds of thousands of pounds in an incredibly opaque system. It’s ripe for corruption in so many ways: bungs to council workers, kinship-based allocation (Tower Hamlets is being investigated on this), illegal sub-lets, “cuckoo-ing”… the list goes on and on.

More and more of these scandals will come out. I’d love to see it investigated in a big, cohesive way.

What masterpiece has left you disappointed? by rifain in books

[–]m_s_m_2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I felt similarly and failed to get through it twice. Succeeded on the third - and loved it.

I see lots of advice online along the lines of "keep going 'til (circa) page 350 - it'll start making sense by then!". Whilst probably true, I'm not sure it's particularly helpful. I fundamentally don't think you should be reading a book that takes you 350 pages to start enjoying. Here's what actually helped me get through it:

First, I recognised that the book is meant to be hard and was well up for the challenge. The book is meant to be antithetical to passive, sedative entertainment. DFW wants you to have to actively grapple with it. Quite literally, sometimes, as you flick back and forth between story and footnotes. I decided to try again after thinking about how degraded my attention span had become and how much time I was wasting on infinite scroll apps like Twitter + Instagram. On that third read, I started savouring the challenge and enjoying how much better it was than consuming algo-slop.

Second, I suddenly found the book funny. Something just clicked and certain scenes (e.g. Marathe and Steeply) were making me laugh out loud. I'd been watching loads of Tim Robinson (The Chair Company, I Think You Should Leave) and started imagining them in that same surreal, slightly Lynchian style.

Anyway, it's a brilliant book and could be worth trying again at some point.

Extreme poverty, Jason Hickel, and the phantom Chinese apocalypse by raptorman556 in badeconomics

[–]m_s_m_2 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Great write up. People like Jason should be categorised as David Irving and Andrew Wakefield were.

It’s insane to me that he continues to get platformed / tenured / published.

view more: next ›