Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ahead of the May local elections Prof Michael Thrasher on the

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited March 17 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ahead of the May local elections Prof Michael Thrasher on the resources of The Elections Centre

 

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    1
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    2nd like England against Ireland
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    It's going to be messy in Ireland tonight.....Grand Slam on St. Patrick's Day
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    edited March 17
    I followed the PB wisdom and bet against England. I'm spending my winnings on subsidised Guinness in my local pub.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    VI and I like James
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    AndyJS said:
    And the fossil stations that were switched off still received their capacity payments for sitting there doing nothing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Wind power remains bloody stupid. Nuclear and coal's the way to go, whilst developing more sensible renewables like geothermal.

    Not that I'm procrastinating.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    Barnesian said:

    I followed the PB wisdom and bet against England. I'm spending my winnings on subsidised Guinness in my local pub.

    Yes, not as rewarding as backing France but even so some money made.

    After NATIVE RIVER yesterday, I'm enjoying one of those brief periods of "not doing too badly" at this punting business.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    Wind power remains bloody stupid. Nuclear and coal's the way to go, whilst developing more sensible renewables like geothermal.

    Not that I'm procrastinating.

    You certainly can't be accused of being full of wind ....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609
    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640
    JackW said:

    Wind power remains bloody stupid. Nuclear and coal's the way to go, whilst developing more sensible renewables like geothermal.

    Not that I'm procrastinating.

    You certainly can't be accused of being full of wind ....
    And if only we could harness the hot air being spouting on the internet every second of every day. That would sustain us indefinitely!
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,551
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Yes it was a bright day in Bedford. Had to wear my sun specs on my bike.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217
    Scott_P said:

    As should the Data Protection commissioner over here.


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609

    AndyJS said:
    And the fossil stations that were switched off still received their capacity payments for sitting there doing nothing.
    That's the way the system is designed to work.

    If you have an open cycle gas turbine generator, which is cheap to buy (low capex), has low maintenance expense, but which uses a lot of gas (high marginal cost), then you want it part of the system for when there are problems, but you don't want it generating very often. Capacity payments encourage operators to keep this kind of back up power.

    Over time, the UK grid will contain nuclear baseload, lots of renewables, and lots of peaking power. (A mixture of CCGTs that will be used every evening and in winter, and OCGTs that are used infrequently.)

    I would probably get rid of the nuclear, as it has a habit of not being particularly reliable.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    Scott_P said:
    An extinction level event for Facebook?
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 827

    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 827
    For the first time since the general election May’s net approval rating (-9%) is better than Corbyn’s (-10%).

    More than two-fifths of voters (43%) say May has the best interests of the country at heart compared with 39% who say Corbyn has. Thirty-two percent say the prime minister is able to stand up for Britain’s interests against 28% who believe Corbyn is.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
  • saddosaddo Posts: 440
    marke09 said:

    For the first time since the general election May’s net approval rating (-9%) is better than Corbyn’s (-10%).

    More than two-fifths of voters (43%) say May has the best interests of the country at heart compared with 39% who say Corbyn has. Thirty-two percent say the prime minister is able to stand up for Britain’s interests against 28% who believe Corbyn is.

    Still pretty high numbers for Agent Cob given his public pro Russian position
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    And the fossil stations that were switched off still received their capacity payments for sitting there doing nothing.
    That's the way the system is designed to work.

    If you have an open cycle gas turbine generator, which is cheap to buy (low capex), has low maintenance expense, but which uses a lot of gas (high marginal cost), then you want it part of the system for when there are problems, but you don't want it generating very often. Capacity payments encourage operators to keep this kind of back up power.

    Over time, the UK grid will contain nuclear baseload, lots of renewables, and lots of peaking power. (A mixture of CCGTs that will be used every evening and in winter, and OCGTs that are used infrequently.)

    I would probably get rid of the nuclear, as it has a habit of not being particularly reliable.
    It is one thing for OCGT peaking plants to receive capacity payments. It is quite another for PF coal and CCGT baseload and mid-merit plants receiving capacity payments because so much non-dispatchable wind and solar now displaces it. The customer is having to pay a double subsidy - one to the renewable plant for generating and a second to the thermal plant to act as backup for the days when the wind doesn’t blow. We can see that when thermal plants don't get capacity contracts they are now shutting down. The whole system needs a rethink.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,436
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    I didn't notice any sun. They must be able to operate without direct sunlight, which I wasn't aware of.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    And the fossil stations that were switched off still received their capacity payments for sitting there doing nothing.
    That's the way the system is designed to work.

    If you have an open cycle gas turbine generator, which is cheap to buy (low capex), has low maintenance expense, but which uses a lot of gas (high marginal cost), then you want it part of the system for when there are problems, but you don't want it generating very often. Capacity payments encourage operators to keep this kind of back up power.

    Over time, the UK grid will contain nuclear baseload, lots of renewables, and lots of peaking power. (A mixture of CCGTs that will be used every evening and in winter, and OCGTs that are used infrequently.)

    I would probably get rid of the nuclear, as it has a habit of not being particularly reliable.
    It is one thing for OCGT peaking plants to receive capacity payments. It is quite another for PF coal and CCGT baseload and mid-merit plants receiving capacity payments because so much non-dispatchable wind and solar now displaces it. The customer is having to pay a double subsidy - one to the renewable plant for generating and a second to the thermal plant to act as backup for the days when the wind doesn’t blow. We can see that when thermal plants don't get capacity contracts they are now shutting down. The whole system needs a rethink.
    Which is why tidal lagoons make so much sense. Want to know how much electricity is going into the grid in one day, one week, one month's time? Look at the tide table....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    So the racists have left the LibDems in disgust at Uncle Vince's comments - and gone back to Labour.....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,620
    Am loving Hat-gate.

    Right wing, Beeb-bashing loons are now learning how they sound to normal people.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    I see after the recent run of three more series on BBC2, Robot Wars has been axed. Presumably, administered by Shunt.

    3....2....1.... De-Activate.......
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    And the fossil stations that were switched off still received their capacity payments for sitting there doing nothing.
    That's the way the system is designed to work.

    If you have an open cycle gas turbine generator, which is cheap to buy (low capex), has low maintenance expense, but which uses a lot of gas (high marginal cost), then you want it part of the system for when there are problems, but you don't want it generating very often. Capacity payments encourage operators to keep this kind of back up power.

    Over time, the UK grid will contain nuclear baseload, lots of renewables, and lots of peaking power. (A mixture of CCGTs that will be used every evening and in winter, and OCGTs that are used infrequently.)

    I would probably get rid of the nuclear, as it has a habit of not being particularly reliable.
    It is one thing for OCGT peaking plants to receive capacity payments. It is quite another for PF coal and CCGT baseload and mid-merit plants receiving capacity payments because so much non-dispatchable wind and solar now displaces it. The customer is having to pay a double subsidy - one to the renewable plant for generating and a second to the thermal plant to act as backup for the days when the wind doesn’t blow. We can see that when thermal plants don't get capacity contracts they are now shutting down. The whole system needs a rethink.
    Which is why tidal lagoons make so much sense. Want to know how much electricity is going into the grid in one day, one week, one month's time? Look at the tide table....
    Quite right.
    Building the Dogger wind farm and a North Sea interconnect at that same time also makes sense.
    Similarly a pan European grid, and very large scale solar in Southern Europe / North Africa.

    The capital cost of building a new, renewables dominated grid is very big, and it's going to create a lot of problems along the way. Once it's there, the running costs will be much lower.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    Yes it was a bright day in Bedford. Had to wear my sun specs on my bike.

    OGH generating Bedford's power from his exercise bike whilst wearing his classic Ray-Bans

    Mike Smithson is the coolest cat in town .... :smile:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Mr. Mark, wasn't the latest series up against Blue Planet II?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217
    Trump admits in court that he is David Dennison (the pseudonym in the Stormy Daniels NDA):
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000162-3136-d513-a767-ffbf3e740000

    So, suing to enforce a non disclosure agreement, he makes the disclosure himself.
    I guess that might free up Ms Daniels to say more ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108

    Mr. Mark, wasn't the latest series up against Blue Planet II?

    Quite possibly so.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,436
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    Ditto industrial buildings. They can have massive roof areas.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    HYUFD said:

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
    Depending on whether UKIP goes bust in the coming week or so.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Mr. Mark, you could also shove stirling[sp] engines on rooftops.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    HYUFD said:

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
    Depending on whether UKIP goes bust in the coming week or so.....
    As UKIP put up candidates in only half the seats and got just under 2% they are pretty much the same too
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    And permit me to get on one of my own. :)

    I have big issues (I could just leave that sentence there) with many of the blown insulation and solar panel retrofitting onto existing housing. In many cases I fear many owners will face consequences in coming years.

    I have less issues with solar panels being added to new housing stock, where the house can be designed appropriately for them. However I would point out that the building companies are not exactly 'good' at building to regs as things stand ...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    And talking about poor construction:

    "Miami bridge: Meeting over crack held hours before collapse"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43440501

    with hindsight, it may have made sense to close the road below ...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,795
    edited March 17
    HYUFD said:

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
    If you're going to fanny about with 1% decreases from the GE, dashed unsporting of you not to mention a 1% increase.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:

    As should the Data Protection commissioner over here.


    The ICO said the same this morning
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,225
    I've done minimal poking around so far on the Councils Composition Calculator of the thread header, but it looks tremendous. An amazing source of hard-to-come-by information. Many thanks to everyone concerned for bringing it to our attention.

    Good evening, everybody.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    HYUFD said:

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
    If you're going to fanny about with 1% decreases from the GE, dashed unsporting of you not to mention a 1% increase.
    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,237
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Well it is less than a week to the equinox. The lag in temperature is misleading you to an extent.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    AndyJS said:
    So Tories pick up 2 seats, LDs lose all their net gains from 2017 and still would be a Tory government with DUP confidence and supply. Clearly the voters love Arlene having such power!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    HYUFD said:


    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015

    Come on, when you win 56 seats out of 59 it's hard to do much better.

    It's like saying the Conservatives aren't going to win any more seats in Surrey on these numbers.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015

    Come on, when you win 56 seats out of 59 it's hard to do much better.

    It's like saying the Conservatives aren't going to win any more seats in Surrey on these numbers.

    No it would be like saying the Tories held almost all the seats in Surrey but are now down to barely more than half and in voteshare terms barely more than a third of the vote
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,795
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
    If you're going to fanny about with 1% decreases from the GE, dashed unsporting of you not to mention a 1% increase.
    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015
    I sense 'almost a third' is going to become the new 'nearly half'.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,756

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    Yes, solar as a major source of energy is much more useful in regions where the peak demand is for air conditioning, rather than heating.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,756
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    Yes, solar as a major source of energy is much more useful in regions where the peak demand is for air conditioning, rather than heating.
    Indeed. Solar plus batteries is fantastic for California. Less useful in Blighty.

    Wind on the other hand we have plenty of.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    But no one is claiming the aim is to end dependence on the grid entirely. Simply that there would be significant periods when there would be much lower demand because houses were generating their own power. I really don't see how that can be considered a bad thing.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,756

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    But no one is claiming the aim is to end dependence on the grid entirely. Simply that there would be significant periods when there would be much lower demand because houses were generating their own power. I really don't see how that can be considered a bad thing.

    Yes there would be less demand for periods ... periods when the grid isn't struggling.

    It's poor value for money currently otherwise the market would be doing it more already. Plus the technology isn't there yet. The solar industry is improving at compound rates currently thanks primarily to research in states which rely more on air conditioning: In a few years time if and when Tesla roof and battery technology is streamlined and affordable then it would make more sense.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    Spiking in winter, doesn't mean absent in summer. I can't immediately see any figures on the internet, but you wash yourself, clothes and dishes, hoover, watch tv, trickle charge your car and cook food all year round. In winter you heat your house, probably with oil or gas; in summer you probably don't air condition, but if you do you use electricity. And you are not generating no electricity in winter, just less. There is no basis for suggesting that solar either must do everything all year round, or is useless.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
    It is a depreciating asset. At the end of 10 years your capital has gone, and you've got some scrap on your roof. You'd be better off investing the money at 1% return and drawing down over 10 years. Anyway that's what I think, but I hope you do well out of the investment.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,035
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
    If you're going to fanny about with 1% decreases from the GE, dashed unsporting of you not to mention a 1% increase.
    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015
    which was a freak year and still more than 30 above what they used to average. Bit like saying Bill Gates is skint and down to his last $40 Billion.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    I didn't captain Salah.

    :cry:
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,890
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015

    Come on, when you win 56 seats out of 59 it's hard to do much better.

    It's like saying the Conservatives aren't going to win any more seats in Surrey on these numbers.

    No it would be like saying the Tories held almost all the seats in Surrey but are now down to barely more than half and in voteshare terms barely more than a third of the vote
    35/59 is fine as far as it goes. The SNP's problem is that their vote is very evenly distributed, so a small swing against them, and/or tactical voting, could lose them a load more.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
    It is a depreciating asset. At the end of 10 years your capital has gone, and you've got some scrap on your roof. You'd be better off investing the money at 1% return and drawing down over 10 years. Anyway that's what I think, but I hope you do well out of the investment.
    What is the expected lifetime of the solar panels? You seem to be assuming it is ten years, but I would be surprised if it weren't longer
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    Almost exactly back to general election levels bar the LDs down 1%
    If you're going to fanny about with 1% decreases from the GE, dashed unsporting of you not to mention a 1% increase.
    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015
    which was a freak year and still more than 30 above what they used to average. Bit like saying Bill Gates is skint and down to his last $40 Billion.
    Plus 37% of the vote in 2017, Yes got 45% in 2014
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    SNP on 39 seats with Electoral Calculus, still 17 down from 2015

    Come on, when you win 56 seats out of 59 it's hard to do much better.

    It's like saying the Conservatives aren't going to win any more seats in Surrey on these numbers.

    No it would be like saying the Tories held almost all the seats in Surrey but are now down to barely more than half and in voteshare terms barely more than a third of the vote
    35/59 is fine as far as it goes. The SNP's problem is that their vote is very evenly distributed, so a small swing against them, and/or tactical voting, could lose them a load more.
    Yes further Unionist tactical voting is a problem for them
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550


    Yes there would be less demand for periods ... periods when the grid isn't struggling.

    It's poor value for money currently otherwise the market would be doing it more already. Plus the technology isn't there yet. The solar industry is improving at compound rates currently thanks primarily to research in states which rely more on air conditioning: In a few years time if and when Tesla roof and battery technology is streamlined and affordable then it would make more sense.

    the value for money proposition is completely different between compulsory installation in newbuilds as standard, and the current regime of one off retrofits and most developers not bothering with newbuilds because it doesn't add enough to their profit to bother.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
    It is a depreciating asset. At the end of 10 years your capital has gone, and you've got some scrap on your roof. You'd be better off investing the money at 1% return and drawing down over 10 years. Anyway that's what I think, but I hope you do well out of the investment.
    Not at all - it is guaranteed for 20 years as is the income. Thereafter it will still produce power. What use is £6,000 in the bank at very low interest rates. It is an excellent investment for us
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    Yes, solar as a major source of energy is much more useful in regions where the peak demand is for air conditioning, rather than heating.
    Indeed. Solar plus batteries is fantastic for California. Less useful in Blighty.

    Wind on the other hand we have plenty of.
    They’re building this in my neck of the woods - 250MW currently operational, will be 1GW by 2020 and 5GW by 2030 - on a site of 77 square kilometres in the desert almost right on the tropic line.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum_Solar_Park
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
    It is a depreciating asset. At the end of 10 years your capital has gone, and you've got some scrap on your roof. You'd be better off investing the money at 1% return and drawing down over 10 years. Anyway that's what I think, but I hope you do well out of the investment.
    What is the expected lifetime of the solar panels? You seem to be assuming it is ten years, but I would be surprised if it weren't longer
    25 years for panels, but you might have to replace your inverter sooner than that, and that severely dents your saving.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
    It is a depreciating asset. At the end of 10 years your capital has gone, and you've got some scrap on your roof. You'd be better off investing the money at 1% return and drawing down over 10 years. Anyway that's what I think, but I hope you do well out of the investment.
    What is the expected lifetime of the solar panels? You seem to be assuming it is ten years, but I would be surprised if it weren't longer
    I'm completing on my house at the end of this month, the panels are on a roof facing due south and they were installed ~2014 so I'll let you know ^_^
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
    It is a depreciating asset. At the end of 10 years your capital has gone, and you've got some scrap on your roof. You'd be better off investing the money at 1% return and drawing down over 10 years. Anyway that's what I think, but I hope you do well out of the investment.
    What is the expected lifetime of the solar panels? You seem to be assuming it is ten years, but I would be surprised if it weren't longer
    I'm completing on my house at the end of this month, the panels are on a roof facing due south and they were installed ~2014 so I'll let you know ^_^
    Make sure your solicitor knows what documents you need to transfer the right to feed-in tariffs from vendor to you, and stipulates they are due on or before completion.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,756
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.

    Spiking in winter, doesn't mean absent in summer. I can't immediately see any figures on the internet, but you wash yourself, clothes and dishes, hoover, watch tv, trickle charge your car and cook food all year round. In winter you heat your house, probably with oil or gas; in summer you probably don't air condition, but if you do you use electricity. And you are not generating no electricity in winter, just less. There is no basis for suggesting that solar either must do everything all year round, or is useless.
    Its not useless its just not especially useful.

    All of those again are things that you do when you are at home. Which is more likely to be in the evening or in the dark when again grid demand is at its lowest and solar is less productive or unproductive. Without battery storage when the sun shines on your home in the daytime if you're out and not using much electricity then you either waste the electricity generated or need to get it into the grid which isn't especially economical either.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,110

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    And permit me to get on one of my own. :)

    I have big issues (I could just leave that sentence there) with many of the blown insulation and solar panel retrofitting onto existing housing. In many cases I fear many owners will face consequences in coming years.

    I have less issues with solar panels being added to new housing stock, where the house can be designed appropriately for them. However I would point out that the building companies are not exactly 'good' at building to regs as things stand ...
    All of these ideas fail the test of 'not introducing new regulations on business' and, if I remember D Cameron correctly, he wasn't too interested in green crap anyway.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    On topic: Thank you very much for this, very interesting.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    edited March 17

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.

    Spiking in winter, doesn't mean absent in summer. I can't immediately see any figures on the internet, but you wash yourself, clothes and dishes, hoover, watch tv, trickle charge your car and cook food all year round. In winter you heat your house, probably with oil or gas; in summer you probably don't air condition, but if you do you use electricity. And you are not generating no electricity in winter, just less. There is no basis for suggesting that solar either must do everything all year round, or is useless.
    Its not useless its just not especially useful.

    All of those again are things that you do when you are at home. Which is more likely to be in the evening or in the dark when again grid demand is at its lowest and solar is less productive or unproductive. Without battery storage when the sun shines on your home in the daytime if you're out and not using much electricity then you either waste the electricity generated or need to get it into the grid which isn't especially economical either.
    I bring you solutions, and you come back with problems. All forms of washing are equally useful at all times of year, and so are saving money and reducing emissions. Many households have members who are there at some time in the day, many appliances - even quite old and cheap ones - have built in timers, many others can be fired up remotely via the internet.

    Edit: in the interest of balance, I have to say that I am not comfortable with leaving machines to wash and/or dry stuff when the house is empty, because fire.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.

    Spiking in winter, doesn't mean absent in summer. I can't immediately see any figures on the internet, but you wash yourself, clothes and dishes, hoover, watch tv, trickle charge your car and cook food all year round. In winter you heat your house, probably with oil or gas; in summer you probably don't air condition, but if you do you use electricity. And you are not generating no electricity in winter, just less. There is no basis for suggesting that solar either must do everything all year round, or is useless.
    Its not useless its just not especially useful.

    All of those again are things that you do when you are at home. Which is more likely to be in the evening or in the dark when again grid demand is at its lowest and solar is less productive or unproductive. Without battery storage when the sun shines on your home in the daytime if you're out and not using much electricity then you either waste the electricity generated or need to get it into the grid which isn't especially economical either.
    There’s also the issue that, in cold climates, solar and wind can be pretty much ignored when calculating generating capacity required - as max demand will be on that cold, still, overcast winter’s day. This leads to excess capacity needing to be maintained over the summer, where solar might provide a large proportion of the grid requirement during the day.

    A cold climate like the UK should look more towards hydro electric and tidal renewables which are reliable on peak demand days. Oh, and Northern Europe needs to get fracking, unless they like relying on the bear who’s currently staggering around holding an empty vodka bottle.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,890
    Solar panels on houses look hideous.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    My solar panels are a great success returning about 10 % on the investment
    So if you depreciate your asset at 10% per annum, on balance they are worthless.
    But as a pensioner my return on capital is the key as it should produce that annual return over the rest of my life. It is index linked and tax free
    It is a depreciating asset. At the end of 10 years your capital has gone, and you've got some scrap on your roof. You'd be better off investing the money at 1% return and drawing down over 10 years. Anyway that's what I think, but I hope you do well out of the investment.
    What is the expected lifetime of the solar panels? You seem to be assuming it is ten years, but I would be surprised if it weren't longer
    I'm completing on my house at the end of this month, the panels are on a roof facing due south and they were installed ~2014 so I'll let you know ^_^
    Make sure your solicitor knows what documents you need to transfer the right to feed-in tariffs from vendor to you, and stipulates they are due on or before completion.
    Was sorted before exchange :)
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    Sean_F said:

    Solar panels on houses look hideous.

    Not as bad as they look on what, in their absence, would be good green south-facing pasture.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,867
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:

    Solar panels on houses look hideous.

    Not as bad as they look on what, in their absence, would be good green south-facing pasture.
    A solar farm rIgh behind my parents garden means they won’t be getting housing there in the foreseeable future. Far less intrusive in terms of the view. :p
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    marke09 said:


    Number Cruncher Politics
    @NCPoliticsUK
    31m31 minutes ago

    Opinium/Observer:

    CON 42 (=)
    LAB 40 (+1)
    LD 6 (-1)
    UKIP 4 (-1)
    SNP 4 (=)

    Fieldwork to 15th March (Changes from 8th Feb)
    N~2,000

    So the racists have left the LibDems in disgust at Uncle Vince's comments - and gone back to Labour.....
    Attracted by Jezza's performance in the Russia debate!

    Or possibly all MOE and no real change in 9 months :)
  • Kyle_KnoxKyle_Knox Posts: 6
    edited March 17
    Hmm. It would be really interesting to analyze how the local elections of various boroughs performed over the decades. I always look at the Wikipedias National Electoral Calendar and, equally interestingly, Local Electoral Calendar and I have noticed that with the former type of elections, the information tends to be significantly more limited and erratic. For instance, no information about many of the candidates; no information about the political climate, no nothing. Having this type of information would make it possible for research and analyze how moods in the national politics affect moods in local scene, especially in regards of safe seats.

    Furthermore, what will also be interesting to see how the voting patterns change with the changing ethnicity of the borough. It seems to be conventional wisdom that the more immigrants there are in a borough, the better Labour performs.

    But what about the Far-Right? Do they tend to perform better as well (relatively speaking)? That is an interesting question indeed.


    P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    Only 10% of people can identify "Sultans of swing" !
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,890
    Kyle_Knox said:

    Hmm. It would be really interesting to analyze how the local elections of various boroughs performed over the decades. I always look at the Wikipedias National Electoral Calendar and, equally interestingly, Local Electoral Calendar and I have noticed that with the former type of elections, the information tends to be significantly more limited and erratic. For instance, no information about many of the candidates; no information about the political climate, no nothing. Having this type of information would make it possible for research and analyze how moods in the national politics affect moods in local scene, especially in regards of safe seats.

    Furthermore, what will also be interesting to see how the voting patterns change with the changing ethnicity of the borough. It seems to be conventional wisdom that the more immigrants there are in a borough, the better Labour performs.

    But what about the Far-Right? Do they tend to perform better as well (relatively speaking)? That is an interesting question indeed.


    P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk

    In general, I'd say that a growing BME population will skew an area rightward, unless and until you reach a tipping point where they overhaul the local White British population.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    Yes, solar as a major source of energy is much more useful in regions where the peak demand is for air conditioning, rather than heating.
    Indeed. Solar plus batteries is fantastic for California. Less useful in Blighty.

    Wind on the other hand we have plenty of.
    Second highest tidal range in the world top trumps wind though.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244

    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The new build estate on the outskirts of Cheltenham appears to have solar panels on each unit.

    I have seen similar in other places locally.

    My friends used to own a house with a solar system in the US, but it was passive water, not electrical at all.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244

    Second highest tidal range in the world top trumps wind though.

    Waves are concentrated wind. Turbines in the windmill poles could be more efficient than the blades themselves.

    I also saw something recently that said a lot of the offshore wind mechanics need replaced already. Very short lifespan.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:
    I'm amazed how much solar generated in the UK on a March say. I presume it was sunny.
    Wait until we all have Tesla tiles on our roofs! :)
    And here we come back to my own particular hobby horse. Why is it that the Government (I mean any government not just the current one) has not made it part of the building regs that every new house must have solar panels built into the roof?

    The marginal additional cost would be insignificant on the cost of the house for the new purchaser and the economies of scale would make it a hell of a lot cheaper for the developers.

    I know there would be an argument about what sort of panelling to use but that could either be left to the developer or decided by the local councils and/or central goverment after advice.
    If they were also required to install battery storage it would have some value. Otherwise you just flood the grid with MW on summer afternoons when it isn't needed.
    The point would be that the house would use as much of it as possible thus reducing demand on the grid.

    The only issue I can see would be the speed of development and the fact whatever we put on houses now might be horribly redundant in a few years. But that would be an excuse for not doing anything ever so I think it would be a risk worth taking.
    But the problem we have is that our energy demand peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. Whereas solar production peaks in the summer and troughs in the winter. It runs counter-cyclical to what we need.

    Demand for the grid would still spike in the winter and all those houses will be needing their energy which has to come from somewhere and it won't be the solar.
    Yes, solar as a major source of energy is much more useful in regions where the peak demand is for air conditioning, rather than heating.
    Indeed. Solar plus batteries is fantastic for California. Less useful in Blighty.

    Wind on the other hand we have plenty of.
    Second highest tidal range in the world top trumps wind though.
    I thought for a moment you were suggesting using the tidal range to top Trump.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217
    Scott_P said:

    Second highest tidal range in the world top trumps wind though.

    Waves are concentrated wind. Turbines in the windmill poles could be more efficient than the blades themselves.

    I also saw something recently that said a lot of the offshore wind mechanics need replaced already. Very short lifespan.
    Not as simple as that - and the technology is improving year by year. Bear in mind we haven't been doing this for very long on a large scale. (And note that costs per kW have fallen by around two thirds in the last decade, and will continue to fall ... very much unlike fossil fuels / nuclear.)

    Tidal is great - not least because it's predictable - but it is far from sufficient.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    Scott_P said:

    Second highest tidal range in the world top trumps wind though.

    Waves are concentrated wind. Turbines in the windmill poles could be more efficient than the blades themselves.

    I also saw something recently that said a lot of the offshore wind mechanics need replaced already. Very short lifespan.
    Tidal lagoons are no such thing as "concentrated wind"!!! They are, as the name suggests, capturing the power of tides - and so, gravity. As long as the moon is still there, so are the tides. (And if the moon isn't there, we have other issues.....)

    These tidal lagoons could produce just as merrily in the windless Doldrums, so long as the range between high and low tides is sufficenty large.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217
    Pulpstar said:

    Only 10% of people can identify "Sultans of swing" !

    And one percent Bach's B Minor Mass.

    And we trust them to elect governments...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609
    Sean_F said:

    Solar panels on houses look hideous.

    Solar panels in convenient, tile shaped, sizes: https://www.tesla.com/solarroof

    A decade from now, all new homes will be made with solar roofs.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    Scott_P said:

    Second highest tidal range in the world top trumps wind though.

    Waves are concentrated wind. Turbines in the windmill poles could be more efficient than the blades themselves.

    I also saw something recently that said a lot of the offshore wind mechanics need replaced already. Very short lifespan.
    Tide is not waves. Waves are not tide. And it doesn't necessarily make sense to abandon wave power and go direct to the wind (if that is what you are suggesting) because waves capture wind energy in a form which lasts longer than the wind itself - they are natural batteries, in other words, so why not let them provide free battery storage?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    Pulpstar said:

    Only 10% of people can identify "Sultans of swing" !

    But those 10% are all swing voters.

    My coat? So soon in the evening?
This discussion has been closed.