How the U.K. broke its own economy • Hacker News Board

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#231

Post by cycomanic » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:11 AM UTC

cupcakecommons wrote: post #214

alvah wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The cheapest source of energy" trope again. Intermittent energy (electricity) != on demand electricity.

the denial of capacity factor makes me want to tear my hair out

Capacity factor is calculated into lcoe, what's your point? Moreover, downtime for wind turbines is much less of an issue for a grid than large power plants (even with a significantly higher capacity factor), because you run into much bigger issues if your GW plant is down, compared to a couple of MW (and no the probabilities of all your renewables mix going down at the same time is very low, unless you're Luxemburg).

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#232

Post by tw04 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:13 AM UTC

lenkite wrote: post #163

giantg2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the large scale turbines. I'm sure small scale or other designs are OK. But screw the large turbines. Where I grew up they outsourced the jobs and then we were left with ugly giants ruining the once beautiful mountains. It's on par with strip mining (aesthetically).

Aren't these also massive mass bird slayers ? The last I read, over half a million birds were killed (official under-estimate) by wind turbines in UK alone every year

Did you read a Donald Trump tweet? Because no reputable source has ever said wind turbines are a major risk to birds.

If you’re trying to save birds, the first place you should be looking is outdoor cats.

https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mor...

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#233

Post by asdf6969 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:14 AM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #88

walthamstow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you think the north and Scotland would be better off together. The south east would only get richer under such a scenario. Taxes-too-high is a common refrain but income tax + national insurance takes 26% of my 95th-percentile income. Is that so bad?

if you are an employee and that is direct compensation (not deferred capital gains) then your taxes are lower than California

Taxes are a lot higher because the higher brackets kick in at a much lower income while cost of living is similar. A top 5% income is not enough to live a dignified in London where most of those jobs are but it’s high enough that the government won’t let you make more. Very sad situation. Top 5% income in the UK is probably more like top 20% in the USA

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#234

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:16 AM UTC

gottorf wrote: post #210

thrance wrote: post #106

60 years of tories and tory-lites slowly but surely cutting "waste", privatizing, deregulating, pushing for austerity... Let that be a lesson to the US, seeking government efficiency is a non-goal. Good, well-funded public services make productive citizens and a strong economy. Austerity leads to a dead country.

> Good, well-funded public services make productive citizens and a strong economy. Austerity leads to a dead country. Most Western European nations have a government expenditure as a percentage of GDP of roughly 50%; half the economy is government. Singapore, a famously productive country, is around 15%.

[deleted]

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#235

Post by lenkite » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:16 AM UTC

jimjimjim wrote: post #211

lenkite wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real number is well above that. Everyone involved in bird conservation agrees this number is a fraction only reported for public consumption - real number is well into the millions. You can ask organizations like ABC birds.

Everyone agrees? I don't agree.

Corrected.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#236

Post by cycomanic » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:22 AM UTC

lenkite wrote: post #192

triceratops wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon were good for birds? Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all.

[flagged]

I have trouble believing you are being honest. Piling under wind turbines?! I have yet to see a dead bird under a wind turbine myself (but I acknowledge they do kill some). Published estimated averages are 4 to 18 birds per turbine per year [1]. Compare that to buildings (where we also don't pile up either) which kill man estimated 1 billion birds a year [2]

[1] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-de... [2] https://abcbirds.org/news/bird-building-collisions-study-202...

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#237

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:24 AM UTC

kjaleshire wrote: post #229

mulmen wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that wind turbines are the only power source that kills birds. Marginal bird deaths per unit of power production is the interesting statistic. This MIT post [1] links to a 2009 study [2] which provides that comparison: Wind/nuclear: 0.3-0.4 birds/GWh Fossil: 5.2 birds/GWh So if you’re pro bird you’re pro wind power. [1]: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds [2]: https://www.sciencedirec…

4.98 birds/GWh in the fossil fuel estimate comes from unrealized climate change expectations. They also only looked at two coal power plants for the remainder of the study. The nuclear source bird death estimates are extrapolated from one bad weather incident over two nights from a single plant on the Florida coast. This is not a serious or rigorous study. Is there anything more recent?

> comes from unrealized climate change expectations

Wow.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#238

Post by Myrmornis » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:26 AM UTC

walthamstow wrote: post #184

cr__ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like em.

People forget that the natural landscape of Britain is forest. The enclosed fields people think are natural countryside are in fact an entirely human creation.

I'm sorry you're saying people think agricultural fields are natural vegetation?

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#239

Post by ethbr1 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:39 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #204

ethbr1 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally, only three things generate growth. - More resources - More people - More productivity Since productivity is generally capped at a given technology level, and resources are finite, it simplifies to people.

Why the artificial constraint of assuming technology is constant? In not necessarily one to hope that tech will automatically bail us out, of the growth in the previous decades has been from tech innovations like automation.

Technology has a ceiling for a given time, across the world, which is really what you're competing with in a globalized economy.

Which is to say that more technology isn't a solution out of a demographic hole, when you're competing with a country that has the same technology and better demographics.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#240

Post by cycomanic » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 3:41 AM UTC

nxm wrote: post #123

rounce wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were those prior mistakes?

[flagged]

Ah yes the migration boogieman. migrants are simultaneously uneducated and abusing the welfare system, but also take away people's jobs and push up house prices so that "ordinary" people can't afford houses anymore. Never mind that those accusations are contradictory.