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

371–380 of 784 posts

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

#371

Post by amrocha »

greggman25 wrote: post #284
amrocha wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that is only possible because of network effects, and a nationalized JR built most of that network. And honestly, I think you’re overstating the degree of choice you have as a rider. Different lines carved out their corners and companies avoid each other. Service level is generally high, to the point that it’s a non factor. You take whichever train is cheaper/faster, and that’s it. The problem is that rail has…

> You can address that by letting operators speculate on real estate, or you could do it with taxes. One of those has a positive virtuous feedback loop. The other has politicians.

I’ll take the option without landlords personally

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

#372

Post by d1sxeyes »

phil21 wrote: post #316
notTooFarGone wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody, really nobody asks for the whole world consumption to be stored in batteries. This is such a bullshit argument it really paints the rest of your comment in a bad light. You can get so far by just storing up to 12 hours OF NIGHT TIME on a local level. Who cares about the 5% of times where we have to burn natural gas to stabilise the grid. 95% renewable is orders of magnitude better than today. Anyone saying di…

Because fuel costs only matter so much. You will still need exactly the same number of natural gas (or similar) plants with 12 hours of battery vs. 1 hour to cover seasonal events in most places on the planet. Until your battery backup can supply a week or more worth of power you have simply created an inevitable disaster in the making. No one is building a natural gas plant to staff it and let it sit idle for 95% of…

> No one is building a natural gas plant to staff it and let it sit idle for 95% of the time. The natural gas burned is only a fraction of its input costs.

Serious question: why do you think that’s true? If it costs X per year to run it 5% of the year and you save more than X with this strategy, then the maths is simple and someone will build it. Several energy companies could probably be convinced to each pay a share so no one is left footing the whole bill but everyone benefits from the existence of the facility. If the maths works, potentially even some of the cost could be passed on to the taxpayer.

In the UK we already have a couple of facilities that operate exactly like this, Cruachan for example (it’s not gas, it’s water). Over the years, ways to improve its utilisation have been found, but it’s still sitting there at a relatively low portion of its capacity so that it can black start the grid if it’s ever needed.

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

#373

Post by devnullbrain »

alvah wrote: post #305
bryanlarsen wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheapest source is accurate. It may not eliminate the need for expensive LPG, but reducing the amount needed is still a massive benefit to the economy.

It's misleading, and those who use it generally know it's misleading. It's used to persuade the layperson that electricity generated by wind turbines is cheaper to the consumer or industry than electricity generated by thermal sources or hydro turbines, when in fact that is only true if you disregard the requirement for said electricity to be available on demand - a fairly important omission.

Most electricity use is not required to be available on demand, there is a high, constant level of demand and the occassions where there is enough wind to exceed demand are rare enough to generate headlines. World Cup final kettles are the exception, not the rule.

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

#374

Post by thebruce87m »

hedora wrote: post #270
cupcakecommons wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don’t need to ask grok. Here are high-ball numbers for going off the grid; 2000 sf house in California: - 30 panels ~ 10kw: $20K - batteries ~ 10kwh: $8K. - permits + labor: $20K (California...) - 100+kwh EV with v2h bidirectional charging: $50K - comparable ICE car (offset): -$40K - heat pump water heater $1.5K - heat pump furnace: $15K - induction range: $2K That adds to: $76.5K. Typical PG&E bills are $500-1000…

> That’s 63-110 months till break even, which is less than the expected lifetime of the panels + battery.

You might want to check these, they are way off. You’ll get double these times at least. Not sure why you need the EV plus separate batteries too?

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

#375

Post by stuaxo »

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.

Once Solar looked to become the cheapest, Liz Truss gov tried to restrict that too.

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

#376

Post by crowselect »

nmca wrote: post #335
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.

Whilst brexit was a bad idea —- look forward not backward! Planning reform is a viable opportunity and making it as good as possible is a much better use of energy than moaning about mistakes past.

It’s an article looking back at the last 16 years - hard to do that when you’re looking forward, no?

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

#377

Post by devnullbrain »

Manuel_D wrote: post #346
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's possible (and fairly easy) to build infrastructure that only turns on when there is excess energy

You can see the breakdown of electricity usage here: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect... For residential uses, heating, cooling, and refrigeration are the main uses. For commercial electricity use: computing, refrigeration, cooling, and ventilation. For industrial electricity use: machine drive (lathes, mills, etc.), process and boiler heating, facility heating and cooling, electrochemical…

This is about the UK. We're now less than 5 years away from when every new car will have a battery. In 10, none of them will have an engine.

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

#378

Post by devnullbrain »

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…

You can't find a principled stance for a naturalistic fallacy.

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

#379

Post by oatmeal_croc »

piker wrote: post #78

My own [local government] is so stupid its own massive 7-figure park project got blocked by [local government] planning halfway through. For about a year instead of a park we’ve had two massive holes surrounded by fences. Too many taxes, too much nimbyism. This one really is that simple.

There's a TV show called parks and recreation which has that exact premise.

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

#380

Post by InDubioProRubio »

pjc50 wrote: post #332
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.

As we can see down thread, people have got into a terrible mess of duelling propaganda and gone mad about wind power. We can have cheap clean energy, it requires a small amount of change, oh no, let's destroy everything instead. I'm going to start suggesting that planning should have a local referendum: approve this set of projects and you'll get cheaper electricity. Disapprove and your bill goes up. Democratic choic…

There is something poetic, about the last charge of dying ideologies being an attack and defense of windmills.

We will see a return of composure as central element communications culture. If you get emotional or irrational angry, you are considered possessed, ridden by loas and not worthy of communication.

"I say Sir, the rabble seems to be quite in tatters and without a plan, all back and forth on windmills, but ultimately in the dark."

Post reply on HN