Prices of the electricity we use to charge

lenny

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 3, 2023
4,195
1,174
The fur seal found in a Patagonian steppe, nearly 30 miles from the ocean
The sighting, the first of its kind recorded in Torres del Paine National Park, has revived questions about the impact of climate change on wildlife
 
  • :D
Reactions: MikelBikel

lenny

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 3, 2023
4,195
1,174
Domestic abuse victim data stolen in Legal Aid hack
"The Ministry of Justice said the agency's services were hacked in April and data dating back to 2010 was downloaded. The BBC understands that more than two million pieces of information were taken."
 

MikelBikel

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 6, 2017
1,755
387
Ireland
Tricky one to score the stupidity in right order..
1.Stopping steel production for klimate nonsense?
2.Losing jobs from manufacturing & exports?
3.No strategic ability to make own steel?
4.Br-non-exit failure to renationalise steel production?
So Tata closed S. Wales steelworks and Sino Corp closed this one, now UK buys from..US or EU?
Did they close the Dutch one, bet not! :)
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,159
17,227
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Tricky one to score the stupidity in right order..
1.Stopping steel production for klimate nonsense?
2.Losing jobs from manufacturing & exports?
3.No strategic ability to make own steel?
4.Br-non-exit failure to renationalise steel production?
So Tata closed S. Wales steelworks and Sino Corp closed this one, now UK buys from..US or EU?
Did they close the Dutch one, bet not! :)
None of the above are the reasons for closing those steel mills.

The UK steel industry faces several significant challenges, many of which are structural and long-standing.
It's simple: if we want to keep producing steel here, government has to subsidise the industry which it cannot do at the moment through lack of resources. It needs to give about 2 billion a year to keep about 33,700 jobs. Do you think it's worth paying?

Here's a breakdown of the main problems by chatGPT:

1. High Energy Costs

UK steelmakers pay some of the highest electricity prices in Europe.

This puts them at a disadvantage compared to competitors in countries with cheaper industrial energy.


2. Global Competition

UK producers struggle to compete with lower-cost steel from countries like China, where production is heavily subsidized.

Overcapacity in the global steel market leads to dumping of cheap steel, which undercuts UK prices.


3. Aging Infrastructure

Much of the UK’s steelmaking infrastructure is old and less efficient.

Investment in modern, low-carbon technology has been slow, making operations less competitive and more polluting.


4. Environmental Regulations

Pressure to decarbonise means costly upgrades to meet climate targets.

The transition to electric arc furnaces or hydrogen-based steelmaking requires significant capital.


5. Lack of Long-Term Policy

Inconsistent government support and industrial policy has created uncertainty for investors.

Other countries offer clearer long-term support or subsidies for their steel sectors.


6. Brexit-Related Issues

Increased red tape and costs for exports to the EU, the UK’s largest trading partner.

Difficulty in accessing skilled labour and materials post-Brexit.


7. Falling Demand

The decline in UK manufacturing and construction reduces domestic steel demand.

Imports often fill demand more cheaply, further hurting local producers.


8. Investment Challenges

Uncertain economic conditions and profitability issues deter private investment.

Some large producers are foreign-owned (e.g., Tata), which adds complexity to investment and restructuring decisions.
 

MikelBikel

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 6, 2017
1,755
387
Ireland
Some light relief in the Dutch Red licht district

Then back to european deindustrialisation..

Dutch not safe after all, Tata are bent on closing all EU production due to energy costs, oh, and 50% US tariffs, thanks EU. :-/
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,159
17,227
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Dutch not safe after all, Tata are bent on closing all EU production due to energy costs, oh, and 50% US tariffs, thanks EU. :-/
Shouldn't you thank Trump for steel embargo? Apparently, Ireland suffers most from Trump.
 

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
2,220
991
I think it is from the view of Europe in the long term. Europe emerged from WW2 pretty much broken, requiring a huge effort plus extensive loans from the USA to rebuild, not just the bombed out buildings, but also a tattered economy. We could see then that both superpowers, USA and USSR, were and still are a menace for world peace but because they were engaged in a cold war so perhaps they would leave us alone to get on with what we have had to do. Since the USSR was disbanded, China gradually joins the previous two super powers. The USA declines, Putin's Russia rises on the back of energy and metals exports, China of industrial manufacturing. Russia was no longer perceived as a cleat and present threat, the world goes through a short period of peace until the CIA under Bush found new enemies in oil rich Middle East. Now the USA have run out of enemies in the Middle East, their attention turned back to Russia.
One predictable thing about Trump is because he can't even think beyond the end of the day leave alone the end of the week or end of the month. He can't do anything long term. He'll leave Ukraine to Europe which suits Europe fine. Europe needs time to rebuild its military while trying to remove its dependency on imported fossil fuels. I think Putin will start negotiating before the end of the year because he knows he can't match the industrial power of the EU, Germany alone can outspend him. Germany needs the war to continue if it opts to have its own nukes.
When you say that Europe saw America as a threat to world peace, I think you are entirely mistaken. Europe has never seen America in that way. Granted a few unimportant left leaning extremists may have done, but this is not the view of 'Europe' and it never has been. Quite the opposite in fact.

Up until now, since the end of WW2, Europe has looked to the USA to protect it against Soviet and Russian aggression.

A significant part of Europe, almost half of its land mass was enslaved by the Soviets for fifty years post WW2. Half of Germany was a police state. Russia has always been a real and tangible danger. Just ask the Poles, or the Czecs, or the Finns.

The USA protected Europe through NATO, and the contribution to actual power from this side of the Atlantic to NATO capability was negligible by comparison to that offered by the United States. The Lion's share of the heavy lifting: manpower, innovation, spending and capability was US power, and Europe derived massive benefit from that.

Right now, the UK is one of two powers in Europe with any sort of record of capability. France is the other, but our forces have been egregiously hollowed out over the last thirty years and they were not that great in deploy-able capability even back then. We almost lost the Falklands war and we won it more by good luck than overwhelming power. I need not point out that Argentina was a tenth rate state and their forces were abysmally led and shoddily provided for. We were lucky. But as is well known, the Royal Navy could not run such a campaign now' WE don't have the ships of the men. The numbers of deployable men in the British army has never been so low as it is now. Starmer's big talk about deploying fighting forces to fight Russian aggression in Ukraine is a big and very transparent bluff, and the Russians know it. Several retired heads of our armed forces have also said so.

So - I reject the idea that the clumsy, bureaucratic EU could ever fight a war. Just look at the chaos they had over the covid jabs fiasco. Even the chaotic Johnson government beat the EU to buying the jabs to the extent that they almost seized contracted vaccines to prevent their export after we had bought them. Can you imagine fighting a war in a scenario where unanimity among 27 countries was a requirement? The idea would be laughed at by any military expert. The essence of successful military action is surprise and extremely rapid decision making. The ONLY reason that Kieve did not fall on the day of the Russian invasion was the rapidity of the Ukrainian response when a parachute battalion landed at Hostomel Airport, north west of Kieve. Had Putin's plan to seize that landing place and send in droves of airborne troops succeeded, Kieve would have fallen in a day and a half.

The only hope the EU has of defending itself long term is by being in NATO with a very large American element in the alliance.
 
Last edited:
  • :D
Reactions: POLLY

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,159
17,227
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
When you say that Europe saw America as a threat to world peace, I think you are entirely mistaken. Europe has never seen America in that way. Granted a few unimportant left leaning extremists may have done, but this is not the view of 'Europe' and it never has been. Quite the opposite in fact.

Up until now, since the end of WW2, Europe has looked to the USA to protect it against Soviet and Russian aggression.

A significant part of Europe, almost half of its land mass was enslaved by the Soviets for fifty years post WW2. Half of Germany was a police state. Russia has always been a real and tangible danger. Just ask the Poles, or the Czecs, or the Finns.

The USA protected Europe through NATO, and the contribution to actual power from this side of the Atlantic to NATO capability was negligible by comparison to that offered by the United States. The Lion's share of the heavy lifting: manpower, innovation, spending and capability was US power, and Europe derived massive benefit from that.

Right now, the UK is one of two powers in Europe with any sort of record of capability. France is the other, but our forces have been egregiously hollowed out over the last thirty years and they were not that great in deploy-able capability even back then. We almost lost the Falklands war and we won it more by good luck than overwhelming power. I need not point out that Argentina was a tenth rate state and their forces were abysmally led and shoddily provided for. We were lucky.

So - I reject the idea that the clumsy, bureaucratic EU could ever fight a war. Just look at the chaos they had over the covid jabs fiasco. Even the chaotic Johnson government beat the EU to buying the jabs to the extent that they almost seized contracted vaccines to prevent their export after we had bought them. Can you imagine fighting a war in a scenario where unanimity among 27 countries was a requirement? The idea would be laughed at by any military expert. The essence of successful military action is surprise and extremely rapid decision making. The ONLY reason that Kieve did not fall on the day of the Russian invasion was the rapidity of the Ukrainian response when a parachute battalion landed at Hostomel Airport, north west of Kieve. Had Putin's plan to seize that landing place and send in droves of airborne troupes, Kieve would have fallen in a day and a half.

The only hope the EU has of defending itself long term is by being in NATO with a very large American element in the alliance.
De Gaule saw what purpose the USA wanted NATO for and left the NATO command structure in 1966. We in the UK have a very different perception of the USA compared to French who love America and Americans but rarely American politics.
 

Ghost1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 2, 2024
2,220
991
De Gaule saw what purpose the USA wanted NATO for and left the NATO command structure in 1966. We in the UK have a very different perception of the USA compared to French who love America and Americans but rarely American politics.
I don't love or even like, American politics. They get more dystopian by the decade. That doesn't mean that we don't need American power to deter Russia. France was right to strengthen its own military power. It has also been right to stay out of certain American mistakes - like Iraq. That does not mean that the EU could ever put together and field a force as effective as NATO backed by America, at deterring Russian imperial ambitions. The monstrous dithering and inefficiency of EU bureaucracy makes defeat certain in any EU military command.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,159
17,227
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
If you go ask people in the street whether it's paris, Munich or Amsterdam, do they fear to be invaded by Russians? The answer is no. We fear being pulled into a war, especially if that is inside Europe but not directly for our own territory. So why do we need the usa? The answer is quite simple, we also fear Russian nukes. We want them both to reduce their arsenal. We know American nukes can't stop Russian nukes but can deter someone like Putin.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • :D
Reactions: flecc and POLLY