Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the U.K. broke its own economy

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 784 posts

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

#271

Post by [deleted] »

milesrout wrote: post #254
walthamstow wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain. Are moors not natural landscapes because they were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago? Is it natural when animals do something but not when humans do it? Or is it natural when hunter gatherers do something but not when agriculturalists do it? Or is it natural when non-industrial people do it, but not when industrialists do it? And why does you…

[deleted]

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

#272

Post by curo »

nikkwong wrote: post #116
kmeisthax wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit is a symptom, not the cause. The people who were most screwed by Britain's prior mistakes voted for it in a vain attempt at fixing the problem by throwing misguided nostalgia at it.

The British economy was doing quite well before Brexit. Now it's absolutely crippled.

Real GDP per capita growth for US vs UK was almost identical until 2008. The last 3 years have been terrible for the UK, but if you're looking for the start of UK's stagnation you have to go much farther back than Brexit.

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

#273

Post by walthamstow »

milesrout wrote: post #254
walthamstow wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain. Are moors not natural landscapes because they were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago? Is it natural when animals do something but not when humans do it? Or is it natural when hunter gatherers do something but not when agriculturalists do it? Or is it natural when non-industrial people do it, but not when industrialists do it? And why does you…

It's unclear what point you're making with reference to the blanket ban on onshore wind. I wouldn't like to see turbines on Cerne Abbas or Dartmoor. Nobody wants that, as far as I'm aware?

I would like to see more of them on the generic grass/wheat/rape fields that cover much of England. That was prevented by the blanket ban.

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

#274

Post by conception »

cupcakecommons wrote: post #220
chrisbriard wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind Energy, like Solar Energy can be stored in Battery Energy Storage Systems to provide reliability to the grid in the event of shortages.

[flagged]

From o1 pro with deep research

# Comparison of Power Generation Options

## Upfront Capital Cost - *Nuclear*: Very high (£4,000-6,000/kW), with 10+ year construction time - *Natural Gas (CCGT)*: Low to moderate (£500-1,000/kW), with 2-3 year construction time - *Wind + Battery*: Moderate for turbines (£1,000-1,500/kW) plus substantial battery costs - *Solar + Battery*: Moderate for panels (£800-1,200/kW) plus large battery costs, especially for winter

## Plant Lifespan - *Nuclear*: Typically 60 years, with possible extensions; 2+ builds over 100 years - *Natural Gas*: 25-30 years; requires 3-4 rebuilds over 100 years - *Wind + Battery*: 25 years for turbines, 10-15 years for batteries; multiple replacements needed - *Solar + Battery*: 25-30 years for panels (with declining output), 10-15 years for batteries

## Fuel & Operating Costs - *Nuclear*: Low fuel cost, high operating cost (staffing, maintenance, safety) - *Natural Gas*: Major cost is fuel (price volatility), plus potential carbon costs - *Wind + Battery*: No fuel cost, moderate turbine O&M, plus battery replacement costs - *Solar + Battery*: No fuel cost, low panel O&M, plus battery replacement costs

## Levelized Cost (No subsidies) - *Nuclear*: £90-120/MWh - *Natural Gas*: £50-60/MWh (without carbon cost), £100+/MWh with high carbon prices - *Wind + Battery*: Base wind £40-50/MWh, potentially exceeding £100-150/MWh with storage for 90% CF - *Solar + Battery*: Base solar £40-50/MWh, potentially exceeding £150-200/MWh with storage

## Reliability / Capacity Factor - *Nuclear*: ~90% capacity factor, suited for baseload - *Natural Gas*: 80-90% if run as baseload, highly flexible - *Wind + Battery*: 35-50% raw CF for wind alone, requires battery + overbuild for 90% CF - *Solar + Battery*: 10-15% raw CF in UK, requires massive overbuild and storage for 90% CF

## Key Advantages - *Nuclear*: High-capacity 24/7 baseload, low CO₂, stable long-term output - *Natural Gas*: Low upfront capital, flexible/dispatchable, mature technology - *Wind + Battery*: Carbon-free, potentially low marginal wind cost, lower price volatility - *Solar + Battery*: Carbon-free, low operating costs, suitable for distributed generation

## Key Drawbacks - *Nuclear*: Expensive upfront, complex construction, decommissioning burden - *Natural Gas*: Volatile fuel costs, CO₂ emissions unless carbon capture added - *Wind + Battery*: High cost for baseload reliability, weather-dependent, multiple battery replacements - *Solar + Battery*: Very high overbuild and storage needs for 90% CF, seasonal variation

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

#275

Post by milesrout »

bojan wrote: post #23
pipes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what was the alternative? Continue with the disaster of central planning. Which is the actual thing that destroyed British industry.

I have a lot of issues with the work of Yanis Varoufakis, but he has one idea that I'd like to see tried out - and that is that the workers own 10% of their companies, obviously getting 10% of the profit, etc. At least in Europe it's uncommon to get shares as part of the compensation package, so I'm curious how the Varoufakis' idea would end up working. It's worth giving it a shot.

Why would I want that as a worker? I am already "overexposed" to the fortunes of my employer by virtue of being employed by it. If my employer does well then I get paid better, get a bonus, etc. If my employer does poorly then I risk being laid off.

Why would I want to invest in that risk when I have relatively little control over the success of the business, as opposed to investing the same amount of wealth in the market more generally or in assets that counter some of that risk?

Also, generally, why should employees automatically get some part of the company? What have they done to deserve it?

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

#276

Post by roenxi »

blibble wrote: post #228
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #80

The last government intentionally banned the cheapest source of energy, onshore wind, from being built in England, by making it so that a single complaint could stop a project. I cannot believe this article talks about planning constraints and energy prices and doesn't mention that.

wouldn't have mattered due to the screwed up energy pricing system, if there's a single watt of electricity in the grid produced by burning gas, we pay for the entire grid output as if it was gas

That is how literally everything in a market gets priced. When you buy an X, the price of it naturally trends to match the most expensive X that will be sold. In this case X is a watt of energy. But you can substitute any good or service.

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

#277

Post by mcphage »

gottorf wrote: post #207
ethbr1 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony about being anti-immigration is that immigration fuels economic growth. - Most developed countries have below-replacement child rates from citizens - Without larger younger, working age generations, social safety nets and productivity investments are difficult to finance - Immigration is the only thing fueling that population growth The real argument should be about rates of cultural assimilation or accultu…

> The irony about being anti-immigration is that immigration fuels economic growth. The UK has had increased (net) immigration for decades, including a huge jump in the past few years[0]. The population grew commensurately, likely mostly due to immigration, since as you accurately point out the birth rate is low; there are roughly 13% more people in the UK now than 20 years ago. Why, then, has the GDP per capita flat…

> If immigrants were, by and large, able to acculturate well, there would be much less anti-immigration sentiment.

What? This isn't remotely true. Anti-immigrant sentiment is deliberately induced, because they're an easy target—it has nothing to do with how well they do or don't acculturate. Although, anti-immigrant sentiment does make acculturation more difficult as well—which hey, makes it even easier to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment!

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

#278

Post by milesrout »

Aromasin wrote: post #12
reverendsteveii wrote: post #4

Everyone who bought into neoliberalism in the 80s is now experiencing economies that are mysteriously failing to thrive. Correlation isn't cause, except when it is.

Turns out Thatcherism only works as long as the state still has assets to sell off. The delusion that assets would stay in the hands of the working and middle class, and not end up with the wealthy inheriting class, has to be one of the biggest political failures of our government on the modern era. It's lead to the possible death of the Conservative Party if they fail to fight off Reform and the Liberal Democrats.

It works as long as you have an economy and eyes to see it worked with her policies in place and didn't work before she was elected.

The Tories benefited massively from Thatcher because her policies massively benefited Britain. Without them, Britain would be far poorer today. Britain's problems today are not because of too much Thatcherism but because of far too little. The areas of greatest concern are those areas that they didn't manage to do much with, like local planning.

The idea of the market building housing only works if the market is allowed to do so. It isn't. That isn't a problem with the idea of the market building houses - it manages to do everything else in the economy just fine - but with planning laws.

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

#279

Post by wkat4242 »

lesuorac wrote: post #139
nxm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Seriously? UK was the only EU member not part of the Schengen Zone as-in it was the only member you couldn't freely immigrate to. As well as it's an island, nobody hoping a boat from Morocco and landing in London. Pakistani's aren't taking your job. The economy is just stagnating. Post-Pandemic is a huge anomaly [1] but the article is talking about stuff pre-2019. [1]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-br…

Ireland was also not in Schengen. And still isn't due to being bound to the CTA with the UK in the good Friday agreement. Cyprus also. And Romania and Bulgaria weren't in it until last year.

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

#280

Post by riffraff »

marliechiller wrote: post #256
tacker2000 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that’s really funny. Im not sure how you can write an article like this and never even mention it once. Brexit was the most stupid thing a country ever did to itself, and the full effects are just starting to come to the surface now. I dont think the UK will ever fully recover from it.

> Brexit was the most stupid thing a country ever did to itself From an economic standpoint, brexit was indeed a big L, but I dont think brexiteers were largely voting on economic grounds - a point which is lost on most remainers.

from a non-economic standpoint it was just as stupid, the idea of "taking back control" is predicated on the concept that the UK was forced to accept rules imposed by others and would be free to stop doing that.

But the UK had substantial influence on those, and it no longer does, while still having to follow them to be able to do business with the EU.

And indeed, the UK has not really diverged from the EU in the last 8 years and voted a new government that wants to tighten the relationship.

It was a generic protest vote "I don't like how things are going and I was happier when I was young". I can empathize, but it was still self-inflicted harm.

Post reply on HN