Talking of shifting to the right… the little group of anti-Labour “left wing” MPs in parliament just voted against VAT on school fees with the right wing opposition.

Which of them is anti Labour?

I’m not sure anyone has claimed everything is going OK. No doubt you can provide examples of those who have.

Overall, pretty steady, nothing amazing, but neither anything horrific.

Wordle 1,208 5/6

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜?⬜⬜⬜
⬜?⬜⬜⬜
⬜?⬜⬜?
?????

So, 100 days of incoherence, wasted political capital, and now a sacrificial lamb. I hadn’t expected a huge amount, but this…

Wordle 1,207 4/6

⬜⬜⬜?⬜
???⬜⬜
⬜????
?????

That sounds fine. The higher mounts for the stays will make it easier to deal with the calipers. You’ll just need to cut the stays shorter.

Bolt underneath also ok. Just put a rubber washer there to stop it rubbing.  You can drill a hole or melt one if plastic

That’s exactly how I fitted Kinesis alu guards to my steel road bike. Nice and secure, no rattles. I used a tap washer as a spacer.

Wordle 1,206 3/6

⬜?⬜⬜⬜
⬜?⬜?⬜
?????

I’m just “the easily fooled who believe the bollocks who has fallen for some clever greenwashing and oil industry propaganda” and would just be “parrotting information given to me by others”, why are you interested?

You’re right: I’m intensely uninterested in you playing the victim, and likewise, you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in my opinion.

But gas is, isn’t it?

Absolutely. So why were you talking about coal?

You say it doesn’t and won’t work, other equally qualified people disagree.

Is it possible to store CO2? Yes. Is it something we should be prioritizing? No.

Centrism has been rumbled as not having any half-decent progressive ideas – but we all knew it didn’t we. Not only that but Starmer and Reeves are rubbish at the politics.

Even centrist commentators have had enough: it’s not often I agree with Will Hutton but his analysis of their political failures is interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/after-100-days-of-mistakes-we-need-to-hear-labours-underlying-philosophy

If we’re going to dance on pinheads, then yes, you’re right. In turn, I sad gas and coal. Gas is still 1/3 approx, isn’t it, and won’t go away in the near future.

Erm, this is a UK government initiative discussed in a thread about the UK government. Coal is not relevant in this context. If you want to talk about something else, please start that new thread you keep banging on about.

Now, if Ed (and Somafunk) had said something like that, then maybe they’d have got a better response.

I don’t believe you responded to what I said, or Ed’s succinct summary of why CCS should be low down the priority order.

It’s widely used. Yes, the UK has just turned off its last coal fired power plant, but in the context of global energy generation it’s very much in use.

You were talking about CCS in the UK. At least try to be consistent.

Go to the post at the top of this page (p60) – I think that’s a fair commentary – “thinks it’s a brave investment, and is surprised at the size of commitment”

Yes, you’ve already told us what someone told you at work.

I tried not to but Edukator declaring those that believe CCUS will form part of a transition strategy are the “easily fooled who believe the bollocks” – start throwing verbal punches, expect some in return

I’m not bothered either way, but moaning about behaviours you demonstrate is nothing more than hypocrisy.

There was a reasonable debate and I thought my responses were measured. eg:

I think your comment is fundamentally misguided, for the reasons I gave and Ed set out succinctly. To summarize, CCS for blue hydrogen obeys the second law of thermodynamics, and is a very expensive way of achieving very little, or, potentially, being counter productive.

Yes, you keep saying

Oh right. I thought we were armchair environmentalists? You seemed quite keen a while ago for me and others to state our credentials. Now you seem keen to disregard them. It’d be good if you could make your mind up.

And gas? I said gas and coal, not or.

You referred to an energy source which is no longer in use. It would be better to acknowledge your error rather than doubling down.

Anyway, what I see here is you parroting something someone told you at work, links without critique, insulting other posters (whilst complaining about the same) and not responding to measured criticism of CCS. Several posters here, including me, have significant professional experience in sustainability and renewable energy, your posts come across as being more about winning rather than learning anything.

The pragmatic know that we cannot turn off gas and coal

The UK has literally just turned off coal.

Have you got any critique from less than 15 years ago?

MSP’s link cites several sources less than 15 years old.

I know who I align more with and it’s not armchair environmental activists on the internet.

Parroting Starmer’s Sun article doesn’t enhance your credibility.

Yeah it turns out that Morgan McSweeney, the man who gets to decide what Starmer’s policies are

Number of free football tickets, which benefits to cut, that sort of thing?

The radiator in the spare room was stuck on full blast. Fixed by removing the trv and smacking the metal valve with a hammer.

Looks old fashioned to me

It’s a steel road bike. I love the frame and paintwork, but that stem is horrible.

Oof.

Wordle 1,205 6/6

⬜??⬜?
⬜⬜??⬜
?⬜⬜??
⬜?⬜??
???⬜⬜
?????

Or it centralises CO2 emissions to a single point where implementing mitigation is feasible instead of having multiple sources where it isn’t.

What mitigation? If you’re talking about CCS then it doesn’t fully offset additional CO2 and methane arising from the additional production, conversion and storage processes. In other words, it’s worse than just burning gas.

Others would disagree, and see it as a transition solution

Yes, the fossil fuels industry is very keen. In reality, it’s crap, and may even have a bigger carbon footprint than burning gas.

biofuels, chemical production, food and drink industry, fertilizer, building materials….etc. It’s in the links I supplied yesterday – section 4 of the NPL report, etc

Yes, that’s the theory, but I couldn’t find anything in the case studies put forward so far. Anyway, CCS for blue hydrogen really doesn’t make much sense at all.

CCS in the UK isn’t going to be used to extract more fuels

What will it be used for? I ask because it’s now being referred to as CCUS so I assume there’s an intention for some kind of utilisation.

I have Cruz bars for my C-max. There’s a locating pin that goes in the door aperture, which is much less convenient than the bolt holes on the roof of my old car.

They’re good value and very solid, but a total PITA to fit and remove. They do make additional noise and increase fuel consumption so I prefer to remove them unless in very frequent use.

First they came for the climate scientists…

Wordle 1,204 3/6

⬜?⬜??
⬜?⬜⬜⬜
?????

Same here. Chrome, Android 14.

forwarded to mrschrispy. she can get me one for Christmas while shes spending money on more bloody cushions and throws.

Also forwarded to Mrsransos!

It’s a direct quote from the article, to show that they all do it

I believe there’s been discussion on this thread around how Labour differs from the Tories.

Perhaps you can do the same for your assertions that it’s no good, and then we can read both sides.

I’m not going to try and prove a negative. Some of the questions that need answering, in my view, are as follows:

1. Where does it work commercially, at scale?

2. What guarantees do we have that storage is secure in the very long term?

3. How do we square carbon capture with utilising that CO2 to extract more fossil fuel? How is this accounted for in a carbon balance?

4. What is the opportunity cost of public subsidy, were it to be allocated instead to proven renewable technology?

5. Who are the commercial entities pushing this technology and what is their motivation?

6. If it were deployed commercially at scale, what % contribution would it make to carbon reduction and what is its marginal abatement cost?

Like dazh, CCS is not my field but I’ve worked in environmental management, renewable energy and clean tech in the public and private sector, for 25 years. I know of no-one who thinks that it’s anything other than an expensive distraction.

Fortunately the investment is in developing CC technology,

What’s fortunate about it? CCS has been talked up for decades now to little effect, and continues to draw public investment away from stuff that actually works.

Pictures or it didn’t happen

I’m waiting for this story to develop.

Glad to have cleared it up, although it was all in the article so have no idea why you would find it very confusing and now perfectly clear. Actually; let’s not dance around the issue and waste a load of back and forth – it’s not confusing unless you declare it to be for the purposes of another stinging attack on SKS and ‘his supporters’.

The only thing that’s perfectly clear is that it was all fine, now some of it isn’t fine. Of course, his supporters would be amongst the first to lambast the Tories for similar behaviour, but rank hypocrisy is all they seem to have left.

Ed – I can see your PoV but disagree, I want my politicians and PMs to be humans, not robots and if going to the football’s his hobby, I don’t have a problem with keeping that up – just find a way to do it that isn’t open to allegations of tickets for who knows what, and do it in a way that’s cost effective to the tax payer.

This was dealt with several pages ago: pay for your own stuff.

I don’t think it’s overly confusing.

Quite right. It was all ok, now some of it is ok. Perfectly clear.

I have my late grandfather’s tumblers. He died thirty years ago yet I always think of him when I’m enjoying a dram.

So we now learn that a box at Arsenal is ok, but Taylor Swift tickets are not ok. It’s all very confusing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/02/keir-starmer-pays-back-6000-worth-of-gifts-and-hospitality

Of course Duffield is transphobic so why was someone openly transphobic and anti LBGT+ in general allowed to be in Labour party for so long?

Exactly. Her views were well known when she was selected as a candidate. I assume her constituency and the leadership were ok with it.

You can consider them as you want.

Hey thanks! Opinions have been formed.

Can you assure us that anything else you have been saying isn’t similarly inaccurate?

You may wish to consider your tone.

Yes, and with justification. If you lot stop doing it, then i will.

I see that you can’t help yourself. Your choice, but I can safely consider your complaints to be nothing more than rank hypocrisy.

I’ve been for a critical think.

I also did a bit of poogling.

In the context of the total Gov public spending of £1.25 trillion (or 1.25 terapounds for the new fans of SI prefixes) £22bn is a small divot. Less than 2%.

However, Gov spending isn’t on a small number of big activities for example, where 2% is a rounding error, it’s on thousands of ‘small’ (in this context, before you ask) spends. And in that context, £22bn would fund an awful lot, so being £22bn short is a substantial deficit. In that context I therefore think that calling it a ‘black hole’ in the nation’s finances, given the amount that could be done with that £22bn, is not unreasonable.

Thank you. Is there any reason why you didn’t give that reply yesterday, after I told you £22bn was less than 2%?

I fundamentally disagree with your analysis though: a deficit bigger than assumed doesn’t prevent spending other than through adherence to self imposed, arbitrary rules, which I understand are being looked at. Good.

Back to the deride tactic again, I see.

Oh right. And what were you doing when you typed out the incorrect abbreviation I used the other day? You seemed to dislike it when I said you were playing the victim yet here we are again.

Again, I didn’t define it.

I know. You’re parroting it, with no sign of having given it any thought.

In other news, I haven’t critically thought about whether 60mm/hr of rain is really a downpour, and have no idea at what rate raining becomes raining heavily becomes a downpour. Have I got to stop using that term as well?

Start a thread if you like. This one’s about the UK government, and we were discussing the Treasury’s rhetoric.