Tuesday, 25 April 2023

Macron: dissing the EU in China

Macron is a real piece of work, n'est-ce pas?  (Is it really a French thing to marry your schoolteacher?)  But apparently his charisma is such that, they say, nobody who ever met him would ever vote against him.  And such self-confidence!  OK: but who'd trust him a single centimetre?

In fact, just the kind of person the Chinese can play like a tin whistle, the tune being that old favourite, Divide and Rule.  Flushed with his pre-invasion, errr, success across that long table with Putin, off he goes to Beijing to persuade Xi of, well, something or other that will surely bring conflict in Ukraine to an end.  Well, won't it?  But not content with this naïve presumption, he also drags along Ursula von der Leyen, only for her to be royally snubbed by the Chinese, fobbed off with having to carry her own bags through passport control while the Little Emperor is whisked off on a red carpet.  Two years ago I'd have found this very funny but since early last year, much to my surprise, von der Leyen seems to have grown in stature considerably.

Well: such is the nature of his diplomatic prowess that Macron is immediately suspected by everyone of plotting to sell Taiwan down the river.  And can anyone see the fragrant Ursula rushing to take his next call?  But it turns out that he's just brainstorming a bit, seeing what's on, floating ideas, trying a few things; c'est juste sa manière, tu ne sais pas? - and of course he's misunderstood.  Of course.  Here's how the ultra-articulate French spin-doctoring machine tries to walk it all back.  

But I rather doubt anyone is convinced.

ND  

Sunday, 23 April 2023

Barry Humphries

What a man.  (What a woman!)  A brilliant brand of knowing, deadpan humour.  

The joke of his that comes immediately to my mind is from the first UK outing of Edna Everage, a very long time before the Damehood; in confident cultural-tourist-housewife mode, reporting back to her suburban friends.  She's standing in Parliament Square with St Stephen's Tower looming in the background:

"And here's me with one of those big clocks they have here"

Right up there in the Peter Cook category of someone that (almost) everyone loved and admired, despite the sharp edges.  We need them.  RIP

ND

Thursday, 20 April 2023

SNP - like a Toytown constituency branch

If the fish-woman gets arrested shortly, as is widely speculated, the SNP's humiliation will be complete.  In the major parties one sometimes encounters an apparently thriving constituency branch which completely folds when a long-time figurehead chairman departs and it transpires there was nothing else of substance there at all: the difference being that with larger parties there is genuine institutional depth, and a Head Office that can intervene to put things back on their feet.  Poor 'Mo' Yousaf** resembles the hapless constituency stooge left inheriting such a situation - but there is no Head Office by way of stability and superior resources for him to lean on; he's it!  And it'll turn out the camper van doesn't actually belong to the SNP either: so, no holiday for him. 

Other illustrative parallels suggest themselves.  In the depths of History Corner there's poor old Richard Cromwell in 1649; and more recently UKIP (remember that?) when Farage's departure made it clear that it was less of an enduring political institution with depth and significance, and more of a shallow puddle with only one rather popular fish in it.

Let's see if Starmer can strategise this one to his advantage.  It ought to be possible, but he shows every sign of being a one-trick pony, and a very wooden pony at that.  Watch for a clunky and unconvincing move towards a devo-max offering in an announcement from that quarter soon.

You'd need a heart of stone, etc etc.  Personally, I'm hoping this all assists in the noble cause of scuppering Sturgeon's "trans self-ID" legislation once and for all.  Will Yousaf really go to the wall for that, in today's circumstances?   

ND

____________

** There is no deeper insult than incorrectly rendering somebody's name, which indicates to the victim you've no idea who they are really; don't much care either; and are probably representative of everyone else, too.  I discovered this by accident as a journo on a student newspaper many decades ago, when a simple typo caused an absolute outpouring of distress and anger.  Sorry to say, callow and uncaring youth that I was, this then became something I deployed deliberately to offend - ten times more effective than mere abuse.  (And not even actionable!)

Tuesday, 18 April 2023

German energy experiment lurches into new territory

At midnight on 15-16 of this month, Germany shut down its last nuclear power generation capacity - forever.  It was asked for one last hurrah over the winter (the Putin effect): but that's it now, despite dumb German politicians at the highest levels who seemed to think these things could just be switched on and off at will, and that actually we don't need fossil fuels or nukes at all.

Here's some dramatic irony.  For those that care about these things - and some people care a lot - the carbon intensity of the German power fleet on 15-16 April was 550 g/kWh**.  And what if Germany had maintained its nukes at the 2003 level, its peak in that country?  It would have been just 50 g/kWh, with no coal-, lignite-, gas- or oil-fired electricity required whatsoever on that day (peaking could have been provided by hydro and dispatchable biomass).  For comparison, the UK typically comes in at under 150g, having halved since 2012.  

So - as the usual suspects gear up to sue the EC for declaring nukes (and gas) to be "green", let them think on that 11-fold increase in carbon intensity which might, over-simplifying slightly, be attributed to the policy-driven closures of nukes in Germany.

Germany really is the poster-child for crass policy making across the spectrum, and it's unravelling at a rate of knots since Merkel headed off into the sunset.  I don't quite know where people get off on holding the country up as a model of rationality and consensus.  Good luck to them over the next few years, as they grapple with "new realities" for their energy, industrial, foreign and defence policies.  Not to mention the 1m+ refugees from the middle east.  Those Merkel memoirs will make for interesting reading.

ND

____________________

** Was it perhaps a day with no wind?  No, there was a decent contribution from wind, ditto solar in the middle of the day.

Tuesday, 11 April 2023

A Revealing Russian Rant - and a prediction ...

The Putin stand-in Dmitry Medvedev, lately given to vehement anti-Ukrainian rants, has excelled himself.  Extracts:

WHY WILL UKRAINE DISAPPEAR? BECAUSE NOBODY NEEDS IT 

1. Europe doesn’t need Ukraine. The forced support of the Nazi regime, by the American mentor’s order, has put Europeans into a financial and political inferno. All for the sake of bandera’s unterukraine, that even the snobby, insolent Polacks don’t take for a valid country, and time and again toss in the issue of its western areas anschluss. There’s a nice perspective ahead: to permanently put the nouveau-Ukrainian blood-sucking parasites on the decrepit EU’s arthritis-crippled neck. That’ll be the final fall of Europe, once majestic, but robbed off by degeneration ... The ruling junta’s criminal ambitions forced Ukrainians to beg and roam around the countries and continents, searching for a better life. All that is for an obscure European perspective. Or rather, to let the harlequin in a khaki tricot and his band of thievish Nazi clowns to put the money stolen from the West into their offshore accounts. Would ordinary Ukrainians need that? Nobody on this planet needs such a Ukraine. That’s why it will disappear ...

Funnily enough, to judge from some of the BTL comments around here, some of our readers would broadly agree.  But that's not the point for now.  Why is Medvedev venting thus, like a two-bit incel bedsit dweller?  For answer we turn to the excellent Kamil Galeev, who has noted several times already this phenomenon of high-profile Russians going puce in public for Western consumption, and has set out his explanation once again, and at some length.  

Summarising:  any high-profile Russian Kremlin-dweller who might even vaguely appear to the West as potentially a more amenable interlocutor than Putin, is very dangerous to Putin.  That's because they might serve as a rallying point for Russian oligarchs etc who've had enough.  So, in order not to be a candidate for falling out of a window, such a high-profile, apparently Western-acceptable Russian must periodically rant in such unpleasant terms that nobody would take them for "someone the West could do business with".  Both Medvedev and Lavrov comply with this vital self-preservation imperative whenever it seems appropriate: and this is another example.

So far, so plausible.  But why such an extreme manifestation just now?  Assuming Galeev's explanation is correct, it must surely follow that Putin is fearful right now of some major setbacks about to come Russia's way, presumably when the long-foretold Ukrainian offensive bursts forth.  Or at least, as a risk-averse fellow he's making prudent preparations for setbacks and the inevitable domestic discontent that will follow.

We may not have long to wait.

BTW, Medvedev also follows in the grand C@W tradition of making New Year predictions.  You'll like these, too  - e.g. for 2023 ... 

1. Oil price will rise to $150 a barrel, and gas price will top $5.000 per 1.000 cubic meters

2. The UK will rejoin the EU

3. The EU will collapse after the UK’s return; Euro will drop out of use as the former EU currency ...

8. Civil war will break out in the US, California. and Texas becoming independent states as a result. Texas and Mexico will form an allied state. Elon Musk’ll win the presidential election in a number of states which, after the new Civil War’s end, will have been given to the GOP

You get the drift.  What a wag.  Bet he keeps away from windows, though ...

ND

Wednesday, 5 April 2023

Nigel Lawson. Not Easy to Categorise

You don't get many politicians like Nigel Lawson.  Perhaps the best thing about him was his intellectual self-sufficiency, which made him more immune than most from some of the typical politicians' permanent, minute-by-minute angst that they might not be perfectly-enough positioned (vis-à-vis their party's leadership, or their meejah image, or whatever else they worry about) for career advancement.  This leaves them always looking over shoulders - their own shoulders, and those of the people they are talking to - checking out the movements of the Important People in the room, metaphorically and actually.  This deeply unattractive paranoia, Lawson avoided better than most.

But it's all relative, and he did care.  When he first entered the Cabinet as Energy secretary, after the pathetic efforts in that job of David Howell (now there was a paranoid shoulder-checker par excellence), he was overjoyed, and held a sustained round of little parties in his splendid new office for all his friends, showing off like crazy.  He was also very circumspect in his dealings with Mrs T, with whom he disagreed on a lot of economic policy but whose favour he wished to court and to retain - even when he was at the height of his supposed invulnerability.  

A striking example was mortgage interest relief, which everybody knew was a pointless, indeed self-defeating economic distortion which merely served to increase house prices.  Geoffrey Howe, his predecessor as Chancellor, had cautiously mentioned the notion that it might be sensible to phase it out, only to be firmly beaten around the ears by Thatcher, for whom economic logic played a very lowly second fiddle to promoting (even if fallaciously) the idea of sustaining "her" voters in their aspirations.  Lawson, equally keen to scrap the subsidy, decided it wasn't on, while privately decrying it.  When, at length, he found the bottle to reform just one aspect of this nonsense, he screwed it up tactically by delaying its introduction after the announcement, causing exactly the baleful impact on house prices that theory indicated it would. 

I'd be interested to see an authoritative list of what enduring economic reforms his many admirers would claim for him.  My starter towards this little project: he played an important strategic role in defeating Scargill's epic strike of '84-85, both before and during.  That's not a small achievement: before Scargill was so soundly defeated the whole of the Left in the UK intuitively felt that Thatcher's regime was only there on sufferance: "Just wait till the miners go out ...". 

Other candidates for the list of achievements?  He certainly played a modest part in opening up the energy markets to competition, starting from the dreadful monopoly arrangements then in place.  But even on that he was half-hearted, despite being wholly persuaded intellectually of the merits of this long overdue measure.  It wasn't until John Major's often derided regime that serious progress was made, with a degree of success that made Lawson's (and Peter Walker's) efforts look like very uncertain baby steps.  A genuinely confident heavyweight proponent of free markets in his position could have moved much farther and faster. 

Feel free to add to this equivocal story BTL !

ND

Friday, 31 March 2023

Green Energy Day. Eventually.

Oh, what sport!  Is it to be Green Energy Day in a field somewhere?  No, it's to be Energy Security Day in industrial Aberdeen.  Oh, no wait, it's Green Energy again - in a nuclear fusion lab.

But are nukes green, as the French desperately (really desperately) want the EU to declare, or are they nasty old 20th century heavy industry?  HMG itself is out to consult on that question too: ministers are hoping a lot of ESG money will come swinging in if it's *serendipitously* concluded nukes are green.  Meanwhile, maybe nuclear fusion seemed suitably whizzy-hi-tech-future-ish and, well, green-ish, for the purpose.

Ironically, it's also a rather good metaphor for something costly that never actually arrives ... 

I haven't had a chance to read yesterday's monster documentation, so I'm afraid the usual C@W precis service is somewhat delayed.  Have a good weekend, all.

ND

Sunday, 26 March 2023

Future of the UK electricity "market"

BTL on the last thread, Clive triggered some comments with: Renewables are rocking da house. And negative prices! So, while hydrocarbons will linger around for a while yet, they’re obviously not indispensable and are, arguably, definitely in run off;  followed by Anon: Interesting points being raised by @Clive on negative electricity prices due to generation imbalance. Perhaps another thread on suggestions on how to use up all the surplus power when its available e.g. pumped storage. 

So here we are.  Nobody quite knows the future evolution of the UK power fleet, seeing that the government is willing to throw really quite serious money these days - plus various threats of compulsion - into a range of energy-related options (nukes of various sorts, CCUS, hydrogen, EVs, HPs), some of which frankly look like backing several horses in case one or more turns out to be totally lame.  You can pretty much suspend the laws of physics for as long as you're willing to throw enough money at it - and certainly the laws of economics.  Also, they've allowed themselves some very prudent opt-out language in case this isn't working: for example, there's a 'security of supply' override on the 2035 'net zero carbon electricity system' deadline (which means it's just a target / aspiration).  And there's no date on ending sale of gas boilers. 

But some things we can say for sure.

  1. there is absolutely no end in sight for dependency on natural gas
  2. the cost of generating electricity to meet demand securely will rise
  3. global anthropogenic CO2 emissions haven't peaked, and won't peak for a very long time (if at all) 
There's no point that I can see in banging on about 3, in the context of dealing with what's before us.  Anyone who thinks the global "drive to net zero carbon" (qua western-governmental policy) can be halted by blog discussions hasn't understood the force of politics behind it (as a policy).  As I first wrote in 2019, it's 100% mainstream now, including the entire banking sector, and most of industry, which expects to benefit from a whole new era of state handouts under various headings, always the source of revenue requiring the least effort.  Nothing to do with Greta, BTW, and everything to do with Business.  

So: back to 1 & 2.  It's entirely likely that the annual average amount of gas actually burned will remain on a decreasing trend, with total "renewable" electricity generated rising.  The final demise of coal will extend current levels of gas burn a while longer, simply by displacement of said coal.  But that's not the point.  Mention of pump storage - including SSE's new project - is fine and dandy but, like batteries of the present technologies, UK pump storage supplies minutes-worth, or maybe hours-worth of standby electricity capacity: important for micro-balancing of grid operations (for frequency stabilisation etc) but broadly irrelevant in terms of dealing with long periods of no wind.

But that means maintaining a lot of expensive stuff on standby, specifically, gas-fired electricity generating capacity AND the entire infrastructure, physical and commercial, to ensure gas will be available when needed.  That's easy enough** when (a) it all exists anyway; and (b) there's strong reason to believe that residential gas demand will continue for a long time at roughly the present level, even as UK industry slowly transitions towards electrification, hydrogen, or an early grave, a.k.a. further offshoring.   Keeping stuff hanging around mostly idle doesn't cost nothing.  Just like paying windfarms to stop generating; bringing ever more sophisticated batteries into the fleet; building vast new infrastructure to accommodate new windfarms; etc etc.  

But what of negative (wholesale) prices, increasingly a feature of most electricity markets?  Easy.  They are negative for just a few hours, just as they go wildly high for just a few hours (or longer ...).  It's volatility, that's all - and tells you nothing about the average price which, as I've asserted, will rise and rise.  And what do we know about volatility?  It's like a heartbeat: too low and it signifies death - but too high, and it's a Very Bad (and costly) Thing.  Or (to switch useful analogies) like friction:  too low, and you'll slide all over the place.  Too high, and you're seriously (and expensively) inconvenienced.

We hear endless chatter, mostly from the EU (though Will Hutton is egregiously stupid misinformed on this also) where ignorance about markets is a dominant strand in public life, about "decoupling" the price of electricity from the price of gas.  What do they mean?  Well, initially they "meant" nothing more than "we've heard renewable electricity is cheap, nay free - so why has the retail price gone up?" - an expression of pure ignorance.  More recently, they've been gently steered towards something meaningful, indeed, logical - i.e. thinking about a more widespread deployment of longer-term financial hedging against electricity price volatility.  There's nothing remotely new about this: any party that feels uncomfortable being exposed to price fluctuations should go for a fixed price!  If this is to be achieved via extending the market for 'renewable PPAs', i.e. fixed priced electricity sales contracts (or more likely CfDs) offered by renewables developers - compulsorily?? brokered by regulators?? - then so be it.  I'm not sure many industrial companies will enjoy the fixed prices on offer: that's another matter entirely.

But it does bring us back rather neatly to point 2 above.  Whether it's the average of volatile wholesale prices, or fixed-price PPAs, the price of electricity will carry on rising - long after Putin has been put back in his box.  That's what happens when you move to an intrinsically more complex and basically entirely new way of running an entire, very large, industry.  All at once++.  Across a very large part of the world economy.

Doesn't mean it can't be done.  Does mean it's gonna be expensive.

ND    

___________

** It'll be a lot more difficult without a base level of residential gas demand  

++ People who pretend otherwise  - and there are many - are like those who said Brexit would boost the UK economy.  I write as someone who voted for Brexit.  But I never thought it would be anything other than costly.  

Thursday, 23 March 2023

Xi highlights Putin's pipeline predicament

Russia's massive oil, & particularly gas exports have always mostly been via pipeline: ice-bound sea ports speak to that.  There's some LNG - with liquefaction courtesy of western technology, but pipelines are the big game.  So when Europe stops buying, and Putin has only a small outlet direct to China, the income largely stops.  And if, as he's been using every opportunity to signal, he's in for the very long haul vs Ukraine, there it rests - and it's gotta hurt, economically - until a big new pipe to China, "Power of Siberia 2", can be built.  

And Li'l Volodya was hoping to confirm that deal during this week's Xi visitation.  Even then, his exports to China could only reach around half what he's been selling to Europe, by, errrr, 2030.  Maybe.

But.  In keeping with all the body language showing clearly who's boss in that rather functional and one-sided relationship, Xi wasn't playing.  The best announcement Russia felt able to make on PS2 was minimal and pitiful.  We know the score.  Xi is gonna drive a Very Hard Bargain Indeed, from which Russia won't be getting anything close to half the revenues it once enjoyed from Europe, even if they manage half the volume.  Yes, China has brutal form on this one.  Nice to know who your best friends are, eh, Vova?

So, living off scraps it'll have to be.  We all know Russians can do this, and suffer long.  They can't be 'defeated', as such.  But it's not much of a strategic argument, is it?  You can't defeat me, so you'd just better give me everything I want.  Hmmm.  Maybe even the new 'multi-polar world order' doesn't work quite like that.

ND  

Saturday, 18 March 2023

Banking Crisis - again ...

Commodities down on banking stress
Here at C@W we pride ourselves on having spotted the "2008" banking crisis in the summer of 2007, when two German banks went down, followed by Northern Rock - all three being canaries in the dank, dirty coalmine of culpably fatuous and irresponsible banking strategies being practised deep underground, that turned out to be systemic.

So what's happening now?  It doesn't look good.

  • Silicon Valley and Signature
  • Deutsche Bank (again) and Credit Suisse
  • risk to economic recovery due to reduced bank lending
  • likely response of the authorities: back to QE! (interest rates coming off already ...)
Thus far, the current banking woes have been accompanied by a pronounced downtick in commodity prices.  If, on the basis of economic contraction, that persists then maybe inflation doesn't just take off again with QE ... and people are forever pronouncing on the Chinese property market ... but I'm no good at predicting these macro phenomena.  (What's more, I don't know who is.)  Are you out there, CU?!

ND

Thursday, 16 March 2023

Budgetting for defence & deterrence

There was a Labour Chancellor, Hugh Dalton, who took the view that his purpose at the Exchequer, like that of the treasurer of a club, was simply to come up with whatever money the committee decided it needed for its purposes.  I don't know if Ben Wallace considers what extra dosh Hunt has found for defence spending as adequate: but at least the reportedly immediate £5bn has been correctly allocated: £3bn for something-or-other "nuclear", and £1.9bn for replenishing ammunition stocks. 

Never has the wisdom of retaining a nuclear deterrent been clearer.  NATO studiously avoids anything that represents a genuine nuclear-escalatory threat to Russia; and, equally clearly, doesn't have the will to generate the scale of conventional forces required to deter Russia by the latter means alone.  (Views that Russia has no designs on anything outside the borders of the Russian Federation look a little silly now: and the fact they'd get a bloody nose is obviously nothing that worries Putin: he has been vigorously doubling down** on bloody noses for 12 months now.)  Conversely, behind its own nuclear shield NATO is doing a great deal to incommode Russia materially.  Of course the exact status of the UK's deterrent vis-à-vis independence is a vexed issue - but for another occasion.  The basic point stands.

Financing costly nuke-related stuff has long been shrouded in fog.  The diligent chaps at the SPRU at Sussex University have long maintained that the whole point of the apparently bottomless government support for the UK's "civil" nuclear industry is to subsidise the military nukes, and they may very well have a point (though personally I reckon Keynsian job creation explains quite a lot, too).  Rolls Royce probably didn't endear themselves to HMG when their initial sales pitch for SMRs said as much.

One current and rather high-profile thrust of UK defence policy is the new AUKUS thing, which is also in the news.  I can't help wondering whether this is as much as anything to come up with a rationale for the ridiculous new aircraft carriers Gordon Brown saddled us with.  What a git that man is.  A bigger waste of money is hard to envisage (would the Aussies like to buy them?) and, as we've said before, naming one of them Prince of Wales was presumably some bright spark's brutal / witty way of underlining the point.  It says much for the total lack of knowledge of history these days, that nobody put a stop to that little piece of devilment.

ND

___________

 ** OK, sometimes this is useful shorthand.  Sorry about that.  But no leaning in or curating, I promise you. 

Wednesday, 15 March 2023

Open Thread: BUDGET DAY

Any signs of an Actual Strategy that we can see?  Or is that too much to expect?

ND

Thursday, 9 March 2023

Natural gas as a feature of Putin's war

At the very start of Putin's war, I asked: What plans does Little Volodya have for his [natural] gas weapon?  (day one, 24.02.22)  Well, to his utter astonishment - and mine - we in Europe have managed a whole (exceptionally warm) winter without it, and gas turned out to be not the crucial geo-political trump card he quite fairly assumed (even if this is partly down to the ignorant nonsense that we don't actually need gas, peddled by greens and swallowed by many).   We went on:

Ol' Uncle Joe Biden said something at the weekend rather bellicose about Nord Stream 2 but I kinda doubt he has in mind blowing it up, easy and rather satisfying though this would be (there's a James Bond film involving a Russian gas pipeline, as I recall) ... Which leads us to consider a Big Accident. If there's too much high-explosive shit flying about in Ukraine, well, all that infrastructure is really quite fragile (although not too difficult to repair). Quite a big chunk of Russian exports still transit Ukraine, albeit NS2 is designed to put paid to that. Who knows what any number of rogue actors might think of doing in that very large country, in the fog of war? There are plenty of people who could profit handsomely from a Big Accident...

So now we have a new Nord Stream theory being widely bruited about: it was Ukrainians wot did it!  Let's see what evidence transpires - we've had enough quite evidence-free echo-chamber speculation for my liking already.  As you'll gather from the 24 February 2022 quote above, I'm not averse to a Rogue Actor hypothesis.  There are plenty of rogues, with plenty of money and complicated interests, in the world of Big Gas.

One thing I will tell you: there's almost no chance of anyone finding a smoking gun irrefutably in the hands of the Kyiv government.  With 100% certainty, we may be sure that Rule No.1 laid down to Zelensky by Joe Biden 12 months ago, will have been No Surprises.  And - can Zelensky get by without US aid?  I don't need to answer that.  So, let the wild speculation continue.  On the stopped clock principle, somebody's guess will turn out to have been correct (my money has switched from Soros to the military wing of Greta & the Greens). 

On the subject of Big Gas actors, they don't come much bigger than my old friends at Gazprom.  We hear that Gazprom is being encouraged to set up a 'private military company' on the Wagner model, but inevitably on much more Kremlin-friendly lines.  

Why?  Easy: Putin needs to harness all the local competence he can find; and Gazprom has plenty of competent people, well versed in mustering big efforts for big projects.  And, needless to say, they are part of the Kremlin elite (indeed, one of its paymasters).  If you're simply thinking like, perhaps a Shell or a BP - engineer-heavy companies stuffed with men-of-the-world with global experience of managing complex affairs - well, that's a fair starting point: but Gazprom has traditionally engaged in the practical world with even broader scope.  Not only do they have their own bakeries,  as I described here some years ago, they have schools and hospitals, AND an armed service, complete with AFVs.  

How come?  Because Russia is a big place (until 1990 it was even bigger) and the further you get from Moscow, the more you need to deal with local warlords of the Kadryov variety.  And Gazprom has always needed to do business far and wide.  Collecting money from a distant райо́н is often as difficult for the Big G as it was for the Tsar's tax farmers in earlier years, or the Golden Horde's tribute-gatherers before them.  The arrival of the men from Gazprom in a small armoured column is often how the matter is handled (as noted here 15 years ago). 

And would you rather be on the payroll of a Gazprom motor rifle regiment, or one of Wagner's cannon-fodder 'musicians'?

ND

Monday, 6 March 2023

Sue Gray: more trouble than she's worth

The old troublemaker
We should probably get this in quick before Kier Starmer retreats behind procedure and un-invites Sue Gray to be his chief of staff, a contingency that must be on the cards given the very weak ground they are both on.  At best, the precedent is that she'll need to wait a year before taking up the appointment, which pretty much sanitizes her usefulness for the GE.  At worst, the move will be ruled against.

What's the attraction?  Maybe her reputation as a sea-green incorruptible?  Hmmm.  She puts me in mind of Alexander Solzhenitsyn - best admired at a distance.  He was a troublemaker in Russia; and he wasn't about to change his spots when he was expelled from the same and lived in the west.  

Sue Gray will either cause trouble for Starmer now, or (if she makes it aboard his ship) when in post.  Probably seemed like a clever idea at the time: but a bad decision.

ND

Saturday, 4 March 2023

To Hull in a handbasket: the perils of monopolies

A most unlikely anomaly persists in the area around Hull.  Uniquely in the UK, it evaded liberalisation of landline telecomms - a sop to John Prescott? - and its municipally-owned telephone network, Kingston Communications, persists as a local monopoly.  It's always claimed the locals are "proud" of KC and their crap cream-coloured kiosks - which, bizarrely, have now been granted Grade-II listed status.

I say 'claim' because in point of fact, the locals despise KC and its utterly useless landline services, telephone and broadband.  If it wasn't for the fact that everyone has mobile 'phones these days, somebody would have demanded it get fixed long since.  Such is the fate of local monopolies, or indeed any properly contestable service, that local authorities get involved with - see Bristol Energy, Robin Hood Energy (Notts), Together Energy (Warrington), not to mention Croydon's ridiculous essay into building and property speculation, and Thurrock's ruinous solar farm ventures.

It reminds me of a conversation I had, many years ago, with a bright junior member of my staff who was (is) of Indian heritage, and who would periodically return to the subcontinent to see relatives etc.  After one such trip she said to me: "You need to take an internal flight to see some of my family.  There's only one airline that flies there, and the tickets are very expensive.  It's odd, because with no competition and high prices, you'd think they would put on a really good service - but it's rubbish!"

I was able to enlighten her on, *ahem*, the Ways of the World.   She went on to become a well-known TV personality, and I imagine that by now she'll have amassed plenty of personal experience to ratify the truth of what I told her.

How many times do these simple lessons of practical capitalism need to be learned and re-learned the hard way?  

ND

UPDATE: Jim (BTL) gives additional detail: KC no longer owned by council

Thursday, 2 March 2023

A simple truth

The other day I was reading something (which annoyingly I can't find now) that quoted the heroic JK Rowling as saying that the whole point about the Harry Potter books was that, whatever you think you know, you should be careful - because a lot of what passes for true, including commonly held 'truths', is nothing of the kind.

This brought me in mind of Hillary Mantel's epic Cromwell trilogy: I have always thought her major point is very much the same.  Cromwell frequently finds the public account is not to be trusted.  There's a classic, if trivial instance of this - I suspect injected into the narrative mainly to make the point in isolation - when Cromwell has to overnight somewhere as part of a mission to treat with (IIRC) the ailing Catherine of Aragon; and he sleeps with the landlady of the inn or whatever establishment he stays at.  By the time he returns to Austin Friars, the very next day, a largely untrue account of this is already currency.  Which makes the point fairly forcibly.

We have an example of this at home right now.  For several months last year, someone I know was on a selective diet for various reasons, which caused him to make requests of hosts and hostelries etc at mealtime.  It has now firmly become part of "what his friends know", that he has a gluten-intolerance.  But it never was!  And he wasn't avoiding gluten during the period of the diet, and never needed to avoid gluten, either - it was quite different ingredients being steered clear of.  It's just that (I suppose) most people have only one way of filling out "special dietary needs", and that's gluten-intolerance.  And that's with the best will in the world!  No harm or thoughtlessness or anything else intended.

There must be a dozen ways in which mere mortals are systematically prone to getting the wrong end of the stick.  How much of what is recorded in history is only vaguely right, or even just plain false?  And how did it get that way?  Obviously, sometimes it will have been the result of a purposeful effort to re-write and falsify history: George Orwell writes about that kind of thing at length.  But just as often, if not more, I suspect it will be because of something far less malign.

One last example:  a few years ago there was a little local project to bring to the surface a Spitfire that in WW2 crashed in a local public open space.  It had attempted a forced landing and hit the deck relatively gently, upright, on the flat.  And there it lay, slowly sinking beneath the grass as undisturbed things do - for 60 years!  It turned out, some of the oldest local residents - when prompted - remembered all about it.  Well you would ... wouldn't you?!

Aside from the frankly unexpected aspect that neither the RAF nor any enterprising scrap merchant had thought to take it away when it was still squarely on the surface** (it wasn't a war grave or anything like that - and this is the Home Counties, not the Cairngorms); it neatly illustrates how very straightforward facts, even apparently quite striking ones that you'd think would be accurately lodged, can simply slip from view.  Be careful what you think you know ...

ND

(PS: I have a little bet with myself now as to what might happen BTL ...)

** This practice (or non-practice) of leaving stuff lying where it fell was endemic for years, and not just in wartime when sheer numbers of crashed aircraft might account for it.  In the 1970s I visited an active RAF station where, in a remote part of the estate (i.e. NOT the fire dump) like the skeleton of a beast in the desert lay the remains of a crashed De Haviland Vampire, left to disintegrate and sink into the grass where it had come down.  It had been there for 20 years.

Monday, 27 February 2023

Tidal Power: A Mystery

Earlier in the month on a thread about hydrogen, somebody raised the topic of tidal energy and I said we'd cover that in a specific post.  I voiced my perennial puzzlement that no material progress has been made - anywhere in the world - towards effectively generating electricity from tidal power.  A breakthrough on this would be important for the UK particularly, as we have some of the greatest tidal ranges anywhere on the planet.  Why would we expect it to be a good energy source?  And what's gone wrong?  Here's some background.

The theory:  Tidal energy has been harnessed, for hundreds of years (there's an old tidal mill in Bow, East London).  Obviously, vast quantities of "free" energy are sloshing around when tides rise and fall tens of feet, regularly and reliably.  But can they be captured efficiently, and used to generate electricity - even if in a rather peaky profile?  You'd think so: there's not much that isn't known about tidal flows; and in the maritime nation that is the UK, we have longstanding expertise in marine engineering, civils, turbines and, since the 1960s, offshore installations.  What could be missing?

The practice:   Well, since tidal power schemes have been trialled in a stunning variety of different specific designs for 15 years or more, quite evidently a good design is what's missing.   Quite a lot of money, both public and private, has been thrown at this - much of it in benighted Wales, where anyone offering schemes that might generate jobs is pretty much given carte blanche, however dubious their credentials - to no practical avail.  Unless, that is, you consider it worthwhile to be able to rule out certain apparently prospective designs that have been tested and failed.

The scheme that made the most waves (if you'll excuse the idiom) is probably the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon.  The physics looked simple enough, and it was very energetically pushed by its promoter, one Mark Shorrock.  Choosing my words carefully, let's say that Shorrock is a showman and somehow persuaded a lot of folks in South Wales, not only to sign up for his elaborate PR schemes but to pitch in with their own money - from small punters putting in a few hundreds, to big players putting in millions.  Shorrock spent the lot, tens of millions in total, much of it going to, errr, himself by way of "management fees".  If it had gone ahead, his scheme was structured financially to yield him personally a vast sum upon completion - not completion of the project but of its financing package.  

Anyhow, after eight years or so of constantly rising costs he'd still failed to get several of the big regulatory approvals needed and the government called time on his application for public money.  (He now has a very large house in Gloucester ... and peddles solar panels in Vietnam.)

He never satisfied the marine authorities on critical matters like silting-up, and disturbing the flows (& wildlife) of the Severn Estuary.  He also came unstuck on wild claims like: if you have enough tidal lagoons situated at key points around the UK coast (he was "planning" five of his own), the regional variations in tidal peaks and troughs all balance themselves out and you get baseload electricity.  This was demonstrated to be, errr, Not True.

Other higher-tech schemes, like this whacky one, have shaken themselves to pieces when trialled at even small scale, and have been abandoned (after many millions of public money have been spent, and Welsh dreams shattered once again).

*   *   *   *   *

As a non-engineer I am bemused because, well, it all seems so logical.  The raw energy is there, alright.  Maybe we do simply await that really cunning design that squares all the circles.

Does anyone have a sound,  knock-down, science-and-engineering argument as to why tidal power is a chimera?   

ND

Saturday, 25 February 2023

Fateful Anniversary (2)

Here are some salient extracts from trenchant Russian nationalist milblogger Igor Strelkov's anniversary summing-up (based on MS machine translation with some variations of my own).  3, 5 and 7 are interesting.  Some of you will fairly claim to have been saying some of this yourselves - not least, point 8.  

ND 

It is not true that no one expected a protracted exhausting war. It is about this danger that your humble servant warned since 2015. Publicly and more than once. Trying to reach out to the inhabitants of the Planet of Pink Ponies.... 

The state of the "military industry" of the Russian Federation is such that we may soon have nothing to fight for a long, exhausting time ... without large-scale external support which only China can give ... 

This is unprofitable for us and fatal for them ... Conclusions: 

1. To defeat a large state, albeit in a half-dismantled condition [but which is being given] external support, won't be achieved by half-hearted measures. 

2. On the other hand, it will not be possible to defeat a large strong state [Russia] ... even with the help of a proxy [Ukraine].

3. ... the result of the war is determined not by radios with drones, not by money and iron, but by such boring things as the determination of the upper classes and the motivation of the lower classes. They allow you to get the above, and use it correctly. 

 4. Without civil society and a powerful media outlet, there is no way. Their role all these years has been sharply underestimated by us 

 5. The loss factor was overestimated by both sides. Modern society turned out to be much more ready to die than the United States of the 60s or the USSR of the 80s.

6 . Over the decades, military schools around the world have become degraded pre First World War state. And besides Verdun and Baranovichi**, they can't offer anything. 

7. Small and professional armies turned out to be a myth. As a result, without the whole population being engaged, they are meaningless, and the populations (on all sides) have not been taught or prepared for mobilization.  

8. Post-industrial society is good, but it was the war that showed that there is no way without industry. 

Predictions: 

No one can back down. Neither the Coalition of the West, which has spent no less on Kiev than on Covid; nor us, who were left with no choice. So there will be a war. Long and positional in nature, with offensives of 5-10 km ... 

Our winter offensive did not take place, so what is chosen is a war of attrition. It's long and hard. And bloody. To understand - [Ukraine] can afford 0.5 million irretrievable losses without much stress. And so many more with the help of an overt dictatorship. To which the West will turn a blind eye. 

The only way to lose for [Russia] is through Internal Troubles. Just do not expect either good or bad - all this for a long time.

** a failed Russian offensive of WW1 

  

Friday, 24 February 2023

The Fateful Anniversary

Last night, at the behest of our good friend Sackers, I watched All Quiet on the Western Front.  Impressive stuff and, being filmed before the invasion, not pointedly directed against any war in particular.  But avowedly anti-war, nonetheless, in an age when nobody seems to know much about history - the closing credits of the film state that, following the first few months of the conflict, WW1 settled down to positional warfare in which the front line never subsequently changed by much.  That's not even true of the Western Front, let alone the Eastern and Mediterranean theatres.  "Ain't gonna study war no more" ... ho, hum.

So it seems Putin can't muster a spectacular for the first anniversary, and he's settled for signaling it's to be an attritional strategy of assuming the West will lose interest.  Well, he's been making trite calculations about almost everything from the start, so why up his game now?   A rather telling symptom of just how badly the Russian army is placed, is the arrival in theatre of ... BTR-50s - considered obsolete when I started studying these things in the 1970s: as if the UK had dusted down some Humber 'pigs', the famous 1-ton Armoured.  T-34s can't be far behind.  Still, steel plate is steel plate, I suppose.

At the time of writing (12 noon, 24 Feb) the West is taking very seriously the latest story, that Russia is planning something based around Belarus: there's blanket air recce being conducted.  The Ukrainians suggest it'll be a false flag attack on Belarus by Russians disguised as Ukrainians to stir the former into joining hostilities.  Lukashenko will be trying to avoid this like the plague.  My guess would be that "pre-bunking" will do the trick here, and Putin won't get his convenient new northern front opened for him by his subservient neighbour.  So maybe it'll just be an anniversary round of attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Everyone, though, does indeed seem to be worrying about attrition and urging Ukraine to make its move.  Thus far, there has been pretty good judgement on strategic matters.  Hopefully, nothing rash results from this pressure.  One sometimes hears it argued: better freeze the conflict now rather than push Russia back to earlier (2022?  2014?  2013?) borders, because Putin or his successor will merely wait a few years, build up massively, then come pouring across the border again.  But this is empty: what treaty could Russia possibly be induced to sign tomorrow that they won't tear up when they are good and ready for Round 3?

The West has to reckon on taking unilateral measures to secure Ukraine against Round 3, whatever and whenever borders are next (temporarily) 'frozen', de facto or de jure.  Does Biden want to do this before the next election?  That maybe what will dictate the timing.

Still several hours of this anniversary day to go, and surprise is always surprise ...

ND  

Tuesday, 21 February 2023

The Hydrogen thing - another polarised energy issue

No, nothing to do with anodes and cathodes: this is to do with vehement disagreements of a pseudo-scientific nature.  Recapping (on an issue we've touched on before, e.g. here and here):

The case for: (BTW, both sides of this "debate" accept future 'net zero' as a given)

  1. Theoretical: electrification of some current uses of fossil fuels is well-nigh impossible to envisage; but conversion to hydrogen-burning looks feasible
  2. Pragmatic / vested interests: this suits a lot of people very well - in particular the natural gas industries along the entire value chain, whose sunk costs are astronomical and whose risk of asset stranding looks quite real; and a load of engineers for whom the practicalities are well-understood, if a little challenging
  3. It's not difficult to see (or at least hypothesize) a future world where periodically there will be large amounts of 'spare' electricity generating capacity, e.g. when the wind is blowing strongly and demand is low: conversion into hydrogen for later use (maybe back into electricity again) might be a whole lot easier than building batteries that are big enough.  Every green advocate whose pet project is inflexible, potentially surplus electricity (nuke, solar) or negative-flex (wind) resorts to "you can always make hydrogen with it" as a fall-back 
Mostly by dint of 2. above, there has been a heap of effort going into this, not least in Germany (some of it bizarre, see links above) and now in the USA.  Initially this was private money - always a good sign - although now the subsidy-farmers are pitching in, busily persuading governments they'd better throw public money in as well.

The case against:

  1. The inefficiency of moving from electricity into hydrogen and back to electricity again is very great indeed (true)
  2. Dreams of there being lots of spare electricity of zero marginal value (or even sometimes negative) to make this economic are just that - dreams: electricity will almost always command a higher price than that, particularly when (ex hypothesi) vast swathes of heating and transportation load has been electrified
  3. Hydrogen is way too dangerous to be used in residential applications**
  4. Pragmatic / vested interests: labour unions dream of untold unionised jobs installing heat pumps and the vast home-adaption paraphernalia that accompanies them  - really quite labour intensive, a decades-long programme, and not a service they can easily be substituted for by robots
  5. Ideological:  we hate those old natural gas people, boo, hiss    

You can see how, what starts life as something of an ideology-free economic debate descends into left-vs-right mudslinging, the Left tending to view hydrogen as a wicked capitalist ramp.

Me?  As you've gathered, I'm always impressed when anyone forges ahead without waiting to garner subsidies: & that's exactly how the great hydrogen movement started.  But that moment has passed: the professional subsidy-farmers have taken over, just as A&R men move in on creative new talent in the pop industry.  And of course they are on both sides of the "debate", seeing as how there are subsidies available on both sides, too.  So now it's really difficult to tell what's good solid analysis and what's BS & hype.  

My guess is that:

  1. hydrogen for domestic use doesn't make much sense
  2. there will be specialised industrial applications where it does
  3. there will be odd, localised, maybe temporary situations where electricity really will be 'almost free' (e.g. in the middle of a remote hot place where there's no grid, plentiful solar and a big mining industry that currently uses a lot of diesel)
  4. it will be hard for hydrogen to compete as a means of strategic storage (via conversion) for electricity with other tools for balancing grids, even those with lots of wind capacity
But that's as far as I'd go.  Views?

ND
 
 ___________________

** personally I wouldn't bet on that.  Electricity can be quite dangerous, too, and engineers are quite good at solving easily-defined physical problems.