Dogkennelhillbilly

Good on you, matil

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But the UK's reliance on Nat gas peak load > style > > generation (as a result of closure of base load > > and replacement with intermittent renewable > > capacity) means that the whole system is > > vulnerable to Nat gas price rises. The cost of > Nat > > gas electricity generation is also far more > > sensitive to the price of gas, than coal fired > > generation is to the cost of coal, or nuclear > to > > the cost of U308. So the increases in the cost > of > > coal and uranium we've seen recently would not > > flow through to the cost of generation in the > same > > way as they have for Nat gas...we have low > > proportion of coal or nuclear baseload, which > > would not have seen the same rise in cost of > > generation as we have seen with Nat gas, > despite > > the increase in cost of those generation fuels. > > What you're ignoring is the cross-elasticity of > global demand between coal and gas (even when it's > dampened in the UK because there are so few coal > fired power plants). Having a whole bunch of coal > fired power plants lying around wouldn't have > meant the UK could switch from gas to coal in > response to gas getting more expensive - because > everyone else in the world will have had the same > idea, driving up the cost of coal. And that is > exactly what has happened in reality, with the > price of coal going up 300% in the past year. > > Your argument doesn't work in theory and doesn't > work in practice. > > https://www.ft.com/content/b696720f-fed4-4f4b-acbd > -302f8935c73e > https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal Coal now up 400% year on year "due to spike in natural gas prices" while gas is up 220%ish year-on-year. Does our resident soi-disant "bit of a dick" banker still reckon domestic electricity price rises are because the UK has reduced coal-fired generation capacity? https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

How very dare you question the accuracy of my intel

Respected broadcast journalist Gordon Honeycombe meandering down Lordship Lane.

IainJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cannot believe that this is to be put forward as > a serious option Permanent closure hasn't been put forward as a serious option. The council has not proposed permanent closure. You are assuming or imagining that Southwark will propose permanent closure. There is no evidence for that. In fact, the council's last move (to reopen Rye Lane to buses and taxis) indicates the exact opposite. The scenario with which you began the thread is entirely invented by you. I will not waste your time nor mine by discussing this further. #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

Very sorry to hear this. A person that's going equipped with an angle grinder may well be going equipped with a knife. I don't blame anyone for not trying to wrestle the scumbag to the ground.

It is completely correct that there will be consultations in 6 and 18 months. It is completely fictitious that there will be "yet more consultations after 6 and 18 months on permanent closure" and "the Council is about to consult on a serious proposal to deny these and all other users direct access to bus services permanently". This whole thread is predicated on a suggestion that is not true: that Southwark is proposing to permanently close Rye Lane.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've seen some of these poorly paid staff manage > the queues. They have a better work ethic than I do, then! And TBF they've been marshaling queues, not deciding who ought to have fuel and who ought not...

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That Southwark News article doesn?t back up what > your claiming, dogkennelhillbilly. The article > states quite clearly that there will be further > consultations after 6 and 18 months, Yes - that's totally correct. That's completely different from "the Council is consulting on total closure" and "the Council is proposing to totally close Rye Lane again", which is what OP claims.

This is West Dulwich, but I don't care, I'm a born anarchist: old Cafe Rouge site on Park Hall Rd is being renovated as Walter's, described as a "Neighbourhood restaurant from the team behind The Oystermen", which in turn looks like a Covent Garden seafood bar. That's encouraging that it's not just another coffee shop, so fingers crossed. www.waltersdulwich.co.uk https://oystermen.co.uk/

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find it baffling. How can any council be against > public transport? It's not against public transport. Rye Lane will reopen to buses (and taxis) shortly. Rye Lane was only pedestrianised because you couldn't have social distancing on the pavements AND run vehicles down the road. The first post in this thread contains the completely fictitious claims that there will be "yet more consultations after 6 and 18 months on permanent closure" and "the Council is about to consult on a serious proposal to deny these and all other users direct access to bus services permanently". It's just not true. The council is not proposing to close Rye Lane to buses permanently. https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/mixed-reactions-as-rye-lane-is-reopens-to-buses-and-taxis/

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it is not beyond the wit of filling > stations to allow some to jump the queue. If I'm making less than a living wage in a petrol station, there's fuck all chance I'm going to wade into a queue of angry members of the public and start interrogating them about whether they deserve fuel or not. This'll all be over in a few days anyway.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sally Eva Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Again with my mantra of 'follow the money', > > the > > > > council were bunged central government cash > > to > > > > close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it. > Hence > > > their > > > > reluctance. > > > > > > Was the Rye Lane closure funded by central > > > government? How much was received? How do you > > know > > > it did not contain funding for re-opening? > > > > > > The signs said it was funded by the EU to > enable > > social distancing > > Part of the ?1.3 million they received for > emergency Covid measures. There was no mention at > the time that their removal was covered by those > funds. So was it EU or UK funding? Do you have a source for that? I looked but couldn't see anything that identified an external source of funding for the Rye Lane works. Perhaps I'm using the wrong search terms. It's just some painted lines and Jersey barriers, isn't it? Wouldn't have thought it would be very expensive to remove. If anyone has any reliable estimates of the cost, I'm happy to be corrected.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again with my mantra of 'follow the money', the > council were bunged central government cash to > close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it. Hence their > reluctance. Was the Rye Lane closure funded by central government? How much was received? How do you know it did not contain funding for re-opening?

Oh interesting. I'd noticed a few more around recently. I see that quite a few of them are still being left in the "red zone" where you're not supposed to leave them so the hirers will be charged extra.

malumbu Wrote: ---------------------------------------------- > Later under Brown there was again threats of fuel > protests (funny how it doesn't happen under a Tory > government) > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dri > vers-panic-fuels-shortages-petrol-pumps-5347824.ht > ml Not really that strange tbf - Lib Dems and Tories abandoned the fuel duty escalator. https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/fuel-duties/

Interesting: https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2021/09/28/fire-suppression-systems-cause-channel-outage-from-red-bee-media-playout-centre-in-london/

Yikes - sounds pretty serious and potentially criminal if there was dishonest intent in "failing to declare" the ?25 million.

There's no good reason why Rye Lane should be any less clean or safe than Lordship Lane or Bond Street for that matter. Deadbeat landlords, inconsiderate traders and an underperforming Council have had their way for long enough.

oooOOOOOoooohhhh!!!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Low traffic schemes benefit the most deprived > Londoners, study finds > https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2 > 021/mar/02/low-traffic-schemes-benefit-most-depriv > ed-londoners-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Yeah well you can prove anything with facts and evidence, can't you? It doesn't make it more true than anything my friend Alfred says down the golf club. > do find it strange that Socialists support LTNs "I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use. And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is, because trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work. As the benefits of schemes increase over time, what opposition there is falls further. That is why schemes must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evidenced. ?Almost exactly six years ago, in east London, we began the first of the transformational low-traffic neighbourhood schemes... There was intense controversy: hundreds of protestors carried a golden coffin to symbolise the ?death? we were supposedly causing to the local shops. But the council stuck it out, thank goodness. Now, the local shops and cafes have never been busier, air quality is up, opposition to the LTN has evaporated, and so has some of the traffic.? More typical high-handed socialist bullshit. What kind of Trotskyist clique has been funding this nightmare? https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/evolution/news/69526/removing-active-travel-schemes-could-cost-councils-funding-warns-dft

slarti b2 Wrote: ---------------------------------------------- > About 30-35 adults plus kids who they are > manipulating to try and support their cause. I > recognised a few of thes minority activists from > the online postings they do, looks like Mums for > Lungs and Clean Air for Dulwich Village and all > their supporters were there. Not a very > impressive turnout but explains reflects how > little support there is for these measures in the > local community. Are we applying normal Demo Attendance Calculation Protocol to this ie divide organiser's estimates by 10 and multiply police/critic estimates by 10?

I have no idea who you are or what you're on about. IainJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the Paris Metro and New > York subway found that graffiti made users feel > unsafe and set about removing it. Oh I'm not a fan of the graffiti. 99% of it is complete crap, and sends the message that this is a place where anyone can do what they want and about which no-one cares.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You wouldn't imagine that a haulage firm in the UK > would go out of business, but this one has: > > https://twitter.com/hallrjh55/status/1442106712434 > 020353 I'm as remoaner as they come but none of us know the company's commercial contracts or borrowing arrangements. Its sister haulage companies all seem fine. It might be that it's "flexible" and casualised workforce have all buggered off to somewhere that will offer them better conditions. Who knows?

IainJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The closure of Rye Lane has also had negative > consequences for the public realm as the explosion > of graffiti will attest without the passive > surveillance from bus users. Shops have closed for > lack of trade. I don't think much of the "passive surveillance from bus users" claim, not least because there's always been tons of graffiti and flyposting on Rye Lane. The (still opwn) bus stop outside the kebab shop/Tesco is the epicentre of flyposting afaics The lack of trade may also have had something to do with the global pandemic that meant many people stopped commuting and working. I'm sure it's true that worse access to bus stops didn't help tho. TBH more wrecking ball traffic and more roadsweeper traffic are probably just as important for Rye Lane in the long term. It's a dirty, ugly spooky street.