• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dgul last won the day on July 4

dgul had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

2,424 profile views
  1. I have this feeling that that is what they know they have to do -- it isn't enough to just do what the market wants -- they've got to make it clear to everyone that it is what the market needs. Dunno though -- we'll see tomorrow.
  2. No. But in terms of carbon cost it was the driving that was the primary problem re carbon, not the car hanging around on the drive. After that, it is car consumption that is the problem, that is, the fetish for owning newer cars. If someone has a 15 year old Focus sat on their drive that's not a problem in and of itself. Of course, the whole 'decarbon economy' might also be a red herring, and to a certain extent it is, but it certainly isn't the car. [IMO the problem is population first, overconsumption of everything second. I think they should sort out other stuff after sorting out those two. But they won't, as they're the sacred stuff that must never be spoken of, let alone get sorted]
  3. There's a fundamental problem with cars. It isn't the cars. It is the driving. If you want to improve the CO2 problem, you stop people using the things, not owning the things. [I'd say everyone should be able to have a car -- personal mobility is great, from moving stuff to the tip to visiting relatives. The problem is people keep on using them too much. To blame the cars and not the usage is a real wood / trees issue] [the other problem is too many people using their cars too much -- but the 'too many people' is a deeper problem]
  4. The Netherlands joins the queue for deficit spending on infrastructure -- https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-netherlands-government/dutch-government-considers-major-investment-push-source-idUKKCN1VC0J6
  5. Yes. Living in the past. The rules are -- government grant. Spend most of the money on the directorship. Spend the rest on marketing and 'fundraising' (jobs for the kids).
  6. Nice to see that transgenderism was alive and well back then.
  7. Funny old times at the moment (fed notes yesterday, bund sale, Powell's speech Friday, etc). They know they've got to reduce rates, but they can't reduce them without the market telling them that it's needed, which it'll do with a reduction in share prices reflecting 'definitely recession coming' -- but no matter what they say the market responds with 'that means lower interest rates!', so they don't get the sell-off which would allow them to lower interest rates...
  8. The report is wrong. People are worried about deflation (or, rather, worried about their investment failing so they get nothing back). I suppose the article is sort-of-technically correct -- they're worried about inflation of the negative type... The bonds seem mad -- you're better off in cash -- but the types buying the bonds are the sort that can't hold vast amounts of cash (pension funds, etc), so bonds is all there is left if you want 'secure'. But there's more to it as well -- the sale was a failure; they didn't sell their offering (I think they sold 1/3rd of it). And there's even more -- the market is being led by governments / central banks buying their bonds (but in the secondary market, so it is okay and not bad, apparently) -- so if they couldn't sell the bunds what does that tell you... Oh, but they did sell them -- the unsold ones were bought by the Bundesbank -- and what does that tell you.
  9. Carbon offsetting is an interesting idea -- it only works if no-one does it. [ie, there's no way for even a smallish fraction of 'everyone' to offset their carbon.] [I think of it as a bit like the medieval indulgences -- you shouldn't actually be able to buy your way out of the sin. The only way to offset your sin is to undertake a carbon penance -- perhaps cycle to work for a month, or reduce the thermostat that winter by 3 degrees. But people don't like that as it involves feeling bad.] [The FT had a nice couple of articlea about this, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/08/20/1566319690000/Offsetting-Flugscham--Private-jets-edition/ and https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/08/08/1565276892000/Offsetting-Flugscham/ -- which introduced me to a nice word -- Flugscham, or the guilt one feels about doing an environmentally bad thing when one does it anyway (well, it is a flying term, but I believe it is used a bit more generally these days).]
  10. And her pension contribution will be even more again.
  11. dgul


    They've moved out of that one and are now in the next 'opportunity'.
  12. I'm convinced that we'll see a move to Al-air primary batteries, rather than simple rechargables. . you'll go to a depot ('fuel station') and swap out a smallish battery that'll give 500-1000 miles of range (Al-air has phenomenal charge density, so you'd get a decent range from a 30kg or so battery). The used batteries will be 'charged up' elsewhere, which would involve putting in new aluminium plates. Each normal car would have two+ batteries, so you'd discharge each to zero before swapping out. Anyway, that sort of thing would delight the car manufacturers, as they'd slot right into 'complete service provision' rather than just provision of the metal stuff. It would also completely decimate all the current fuss about installing car charging facilities on the street, range anxiety, super-fast chargers, etc.
  13. Well, there's the Renault Twizy: The trouble is, the battery is everything, and it scales too well. So you end up with the Twizy costing €7k with €50 a month battery, where you can get a proper electric car at not that much more (especially when look at from a lease cost pov).
  14. Building an electric bike is easy -- just get one of the cheap wheel kits from Ebay and a battery.
  15. It'll be exactly like my grade 8 bluegrass banjo playing -- it might well be worth ucas points but in the end they won't be considered for any university course, bar perhaps studying bluegrass music at Spaddy College.