In case there are any left-wing people supporting a universal subsidisation of energy - and unfortunately in the UK it's Green Party policy - this is what it means. The only fair and just thing to do is for rich countries to accelerate decarbonisation and limit fossil fuel use as much as possible.

If we get relegated I'll still be more sad that we got rid of Ange than the fact we got relegated because of it.

Being right about things in general is overrated but being right about something that everyone is telling you is a dumb idea is pretty much essential.

Is there actually anyone who is able to tell him what is going to happen if this carries on?

Also no 10 mile bike ride goes by without an interesting interaction with nature but I saw something rarely seen in the wild today, certainly not anything I've ever seen before. A seagull eating an actual fish, and not one that'd been deep fried in batter either!

I only really discovered X/Twitter during Covid so it became obvious to me quite quickly that the changes Musk made immediately and irretrievably screwed it as a social media site (ie one where you could actually communicate with people). I guess lots of people still in denial about that.

Turns out if you haven't done your 10 mile each way commute on an acoustic bike for 6 months it's a bit of a struggle. Earned my dinner tonight!

In a net-zero carbon-constrained world "fixed" carbon is going to be far too valuable to burn heating people's houses.

Day one of a new PM if/when it happens she needs to be out. Her spouting this rubbish day in day out is a bigger reason to get rid of Starmer than any of the Mandelson stuff.

That Tatu song is an underrated banger.

Our local council (Haringey in London) is pretty tight on that kind of thing. I know people who've been pulled in for a grilling because they bought a new house before they sold their old one. Don't see how you'd get away with renting if you own a place nearby.

Yeah, was just saying there's an event today that half the cabinet are speaking at on clean growth, a bunch of the Guardian staff are there as well and they're all busily posting about Mandelson.

I feel like Bayesian statistics might be more applicable here. If you fail abjectly 10 times in a row you might want to update your 1/100 prior!

"AI means any idiot can do my job!" says really smart guy.

Boilerplate big business moaning. It's clearly not a retrospective policy change and EDF and Drax should just be grateful they've been raking it in for 15 years.

This is the biggest hope for Labour winning the next election - the Tory and Reform policies on clean energy will look increasingly stupid by 2029 and voters will have a clear choice to make.

Kind of wild there's an event that Reeves, Jones, Miliband, Tomlinson, Rayner, the shadow Chancellor, the deputy leader of Lib Dems, several mayors and former mayors and a bunch of CEOs are all talking at and there's basically zero media coverage.

Vanadium flow batteries have decoupled power and energy so the duration is how big you make the tanks holding the vanadium rather than anything to do with the battery itself (I have issues with them being called batteries at all for that reason but unfortunately 30 years of language is against me)

Is this the kind of thing you're looking for?

Methane has downsides too - efficiency is lower, GWP from leaks is higher, to do anything with it except burn it you need to convert back into H2 and as you say you need CO2. There's no obvious winning technology yet for CES.

The big benefits of hydrogen are extremely low storage costs ($1/kWh), there is a lot of existing infrastructure, there's going to be other markets (eg chemical industries) so the capex isn't all on LDES and the Nimby issues are much easier to deal with.

There are literally thousands of papers on it - what specifically are you interested in, technologies, systems, technoeconomic?

4 hour batteries don't have to discharge in 4 hours, that's just how long they last at maximum power. The real issue is economic - the fewer times they fully discharge per year the more the capex affects the price.

I said that upthread. Given a choice between £20bn extra for the NHS and a massive fight with pensioners and disabled people over £2bn surely they would have been better off giving £18bn extra for the NHS and not having those battles.

Things like Israel - Palestine, ditching the £28bn green number and nationalisations were also big issues in safe seats.

Well yeah that's what I said - the things they've said have had far more of a negative effect on people's opinions than the things they've done have had a positive effect. NHS spending might help opinions by the next election but their talk about benefits and immigration is costing them now.

Yes I agree that taxing jobs will result in a weaker jobs market, the thing I'm disagreeing about is that it's bad for growth, I don't think the evidence of the last few decades bears that out.

Yes, but you said it had weakened the economy as well. That is very arguable. On the face of it prioritising low unemployment has not had a great record on improving growth over the last 20 years.

I didn't say cut it, just increase it by less than the massive amount it's been increased by, considering that it seems like they're getting no political benefit from that increase.

It would definitely teach some lessons that no one would learn if the guy who failed at leader of the opposition was a massive success replacing the Prime Minister who failed but was a great leader of the opposition.