Kaetror

@LEGS223 @Telegraph Right, but why does *wind* have to be charged at the same price? Buy gas at the gas price, fine, but the other sources? It's like saying a shop stocks sirloin in case chicken runs out, so everyone has to buy chicken at the price per kg of sirloin.

@Kaetror @Telegraph I don't think you understand the point being made - renewables still need gas backup, which is why we still have to pay for that baseline cost. If say we were extracting our own gas we could charge the lower rates, but we have to be able to buy it on the global market.

The head of British Gas has called on the Government to drop its ban on exploiting untapped oil and gas fields in the North Sea, saying the move would help ease spiralling energy costs ⤵️ telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/…

@OhCrappy @Telegraph Boss of massive energy company wants to pressure the government to do a thing that would boost his company's profits. Big shocker. Do you take everyone at their word and only have a surface level understanding of their intentions?

@Kaetror @Telegraph Random knows more than boss of massive energy company. Okay bud 👌

@LEGS223 @Telegraph What are you on about? Green energy *is* cheap energy! Onshore Wind: £38–£63 Large-scale Solar: £41–£48/MWh Offshore Wind: £44–£94/MWh (CCGT): £114–£124/MWh Nuclear: £60–£70/MWh (higher with the new plants being built). Gas is *the* most expensive option going.

@Kaetror @Telegraph I agree it's insane. We should be going for cheap energy not green energy, but here we are.

@LEGS223 @Telegraph But under the way UK pricing is calculated, because we sourced 1% from gas, EVERY MWh must be charged at the highest price. So it becomes 100×114 = £11400. An extra £7524, a 194% increase in cost. All of which gets passed on to customers. How does that make sense?

@LEGS223 @Telegraph So it's ok to charge 3x as much for energy that comes from renewables 'just in case'? Wind costs £38/MWh to generate, gas is £114/MWh. Let's say you buy 100MWh. 99 of them come from wind, the final 1 from gas. Common sense would be (99×38)+114 = £3876.

@BenGrahamUK Key word there being *billions*. Nobody has *ever* argued that climate can only change due to human activity, but when we are witnessing a climate shift in a single century that previously took millennia, it doesn't take a genius to make the connection.

We’re told a 1°C temperature rise is proof of man made climate catastrophe. Yet over billions of years, earth has seen far greater swings, ice ages, warming periods, all without fossil fuels. At what point do we question the narrative instead of blindly funding it?

@StevieMac03 @markgadala If I were you I wouldn't be putting my name to this utter dumpster fire...

@markgadala Would appreciate my content not being taken uncredited thanks.

So cool. Someone is using Seedance 2 to recreate the British Anglo Zulu war.

@Homu_Fan @SamaHoole @BalatrianKid This is about the UK. The average UK beef farm is 100 ha and under 100 head. 87% are majority grass fed, accounting for 70% of diet. Like I said, you all look at some 🇺🇸 made documentary on gigantic feedlots fed nothing but soy and corn, and assume that's what it's like here.

@Kaetror @SamaHoole @BalatrianKid I really don't know how to convince you of reality. Like the world consumes 100 million tonnes of beef a year, if you want to believe most of those cows are owned by small farmers, that's on you.

Activist: "The water usage for beef is obscene. Thousands of litres per kilogram." Farmer: "That's rainfall." Activist: "What?" Farmer: "The figure includes all the rain that falls on the pasture. The cows drink from the stream. The rain falls whether there's a cow here or not." Activist: "It's still water consumption." Farmer: "Should I stop the rain falling on my field?" Activist: "Grow crops instead. More efficient." Farmer: "This is a 35-degree slope in the Welsh hills. Show me the crop." Activist: "Technology..." Farmer: "To make tractors climb mountains?" Activist: "There must be a solution." Farmer: "There is. It's called a cow." Activist: [checks phone]

@ScottishSuffra1 @RewildScotland You've not read your bible much, have you....

@RewildScotland Teaching impressionable children about a religion that condones child marriage, animal abuse, the stoning of women, cousin marriage, fgm, has no place in a classroom.

My grandson came home yesterday and told his mum that they had a lesson on muslims, and their religion in school that day. Today, my family decided that as Christians, catholics, and with Jewish relatives as well as women's rights activists aplenty within our family, this was not appropriate, needed, or wanted. Monday, the head teacher will have a complaint she never imagined, she will never forget and will never wish repeated.

@ScottishSuffra1 But you're alright with forced Christianity being rammed down their throat every year, yeah? Either you accept all religions being taught in a secular way, with no religious influences, or you want it all removed and kids learn none of it. Can't have both.

@Handre And right now we *waste* enough food to feed every undernourished person on earth, twice over. The US alone wastes enough to feed another 100 million people per year. Is that a condemnation of capitalism as a blueprint for mass murder?

@Handre "Millions died eating grass and bark while grain exports continued flowing to foreign markets." That's literally what happened in Ireland during the 1800s. And Bengal in 1943. Millions died, while food stocks were sent elsewhere.

The corpse count speaks louder than any theory — Josef Stalin murdered between 6 and 20 million of his own people through deliberate famines, mass executions, and gulags that made Hitler look like an amateur. Yet somehow we still have economics professors teaching that central planning can work if we just find the right technocrats. Stalin's Holodomor in Ukraine stands as the perfect case study in socialist arithmetic. When Ukrainian peasants resisted collectivization, Stalin simply starved them into submission — confiscating grain, banning travel, and posting guards to prevent anyone from escaping the famine zones. Millions died eating grass and bark while Soviet grain exports continued flowing to Western markets. The kulaks — prosperous farmers guilty of the crime of success — were liquidated entirely as a class. And this wasn't some accident or deviation from true socialism. This was central planning working exactly as designed. When the state owns all property and controls all production, human beings become mere inputs in the grand equation. Stalin understood what modern progressives refuse to admit: you cannot remake human nature without breaking a few million eggs. The same academic establishment that clutches pearls over free market "inequality" continues treating Marx as serious economic theory rather than a blueprint for mass murder. They'll spend hours debating whether Keynes got the multiplier effect right while treating Stalin's body count as an unfortunate implementation detail rather than the inevitable result of abolishing private property.

@MissCatnach I've made this case to our HT before. Kids take no responsibility for their own HW. "I don't have/couldn't get on the app" "You never put it on the app!" Parents never look at it, so that argument is useless.

I'm going to put it out there: I miss homework diaries. Planners. Whatever you want to call them. Where students wrote their homework down. Instead of everything being on an app...

@Homu_Fan @SamaHoole @BalatrianKid Why do vegans only have an understanding of farming from twitter and netflix? They see a video of some ridiculous US feedlot and assume it's the same everywhere.

@SamaHoole @BalatrianKid Why do right wingers all have a child's understanding of where our food comes from?

@awpoorbabyboy @SamaHoole @BalatrianKid See that brown stuff on the ground? Know what that is? It's silage; fermented grass. Fed to them when they're not in the fields (e.g. over winter).

@SamaHoole @BalatrianKid This is beef farming in Britain.

@HansMahncke Why should allies get involved in another illegal US war? Why should they agree to work with a president who just last week said he didn't need their help and the US would do it alone? Why should they expend military force allied with the biggest threat to their sovereignty?

This is a great example of the failure of credentialism. Random people have to explain basic political science to a so-called “Professor of Political Science.” The Strait of Hormuz issue is the perfect “allies” test. The United States has very little direct interest in the strait, as almost none of its ships or energy flows pass through there. So before the United States starts doing all the heavy lifting, it is the ideal moment to ask those who actually benefit from the strait being open what they are willing to contribute. The fact that they all said nothing is proof of what Trump has been saying all along, that supposed “allies” are really just freeloaders. So this was never about whether the Europeans could actually help with a handful of dilapidated frigates. It was a test, and they all failed.

@likeuson @HarperL75661966 @RStrongdoctor @ClarkeMicah Except they don't. Ignoring the fact that the kids who don't get in get screwed, the brightest kids don't do better in grammars. So you're screwing over the kids who don't get into the grammar, with no gain at the top end. So what's the point?

@HarperL75661966 @RStrongdoctor @ClarkeMicah It's a given that selective schools will get better results than a comprehensive in the same way that a premier league football club who can select the best player will get better results than an amateur club.

Everything in Britain is comprehensive now. In all fields of life we pay the painful price for destroying rigorous education 60 years ago. From the Daily Mail today..

@RStrongdoctor @ClarkeMicah What percentage of working class kids actually got into grammars, never mind to uni at the other end? It was (and still is) a way for the middle class to get their kids away from 'undesirables'. Areas with grammars today perform worse than areas without them.

Comprehensive education promised to make excellence available to everyone. Instead it succeeded by making excellence optional for everyone. The grammar school sent working class children to Oxford while the comprehensive system sent them to a university that used to be a polytechnic with a degree that used to be an HND. That is not equality, rather it is the democratisation of disappointment.

@0Beanie05923291 The flip side of this is I was forced to read Dickens at 14, instead of the book I actually *wanted* to read (lotr, so not a low value text). Hated it so much I have *zero* interest in his other texts. I can appreciate their worth, at a distance. It's a balancing act.

A friend and I were recently discussing some of the classics we’ve read and some that we still need/want to read. He said the only reason he’s read some of them was because teachers made him when he was in school. He didn’t appreciate it then, but now he’s really grateful they did. Oftentimes, teachers (and parents) don’t realize the positive impact of their relentlessness and persistence when they refuse to cave to the complaints of surly teenagers. The students who are forced to read great literature in school likely won’t appreciate it until much later in life. When they do, they’ll think of you with gratitude.