Yes, but the study seems to be comparing two groups where there is no reason to think anything else changed. The British diet didn't change in other ways after 1953, the only real difference was that sugar rationing had ended. At least, that would be the claim.

Nostalgia is all very well, but it was not a very healthy diet, lots of white bread, margarine, overcooked and limited number of vegetables. It was eaten in a more disciplined way - before or after 1953 children would not go to the larder or fridge and help themselves. Meals were eaten at mealtimes, with minimal snacking.

There are not very many people alive now who remember those days, but if you can find one and talk to them you get a picture of life which makes it plausible that the change in sugar rationing was a key variable. Other things mentioned, like activity, yes they were very different from now, but they did not change much in 1953, whereas sugar did.

As always no numbers, and argument on an engineering topic which is at the level of literary criticism.

to make the case you need to take a specific system where there is data available, and show that your argument applies there.

The most accessible in a few clicks is the UK. Go to www.gridwatch.co.uk for graphics. If you want the csv data free get it from www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk. Do the work and you will see that in winter there is peak demand of a bit under 50GW and that solar is basically non-existent from about 22GW faceplate. A function mainly of latitude with a contribution from weather. You will also see that there are in most winters periods of a week or ten days when wind generates less than 3GW from faceplate installed base of about 32GW. So what we have here is peak demand with peak low output from wind and solar.

In summer on the other hand you have peak solar and long days, but summer is not when you get peak demand.

What's the result of all this? Its that if you want to supply 50GW peak you have to have more than 50GW gas generation. But having it, you then only use it for part of the time, because part of the time you have wind and solar peaking. Something else also happens, at peak production, which does not coincide with peak demand and often in summer coincides with low demand, you have to turn off the wind.

The UK, if government plans work out, is going to end up with around 200GW of generating capacity to supply about 60GW of peak demand. And in operational terms, its constructing huge amounts of generating capacity off the north coast of Scotland or similar inhospitable places distant from demand. Then it constructs hugely expensive transmission links to bring this generated power to where its needed. It also builds gas to cover calms and nights.

So the result is, it pays people to install wind, then it pays them not to generate from it. Then it pays others to install gas and generate from it in the timesa when the guys its paying not to generate comply and turn off. The result of this is the highest electricity prices in the industrialized countries - and no, I am not spoon feeding you numbers, llook it up for yourself!. And it is only getting worse. The more wind they install, the more they have to pay to turn off, and however much wind they install the lows are still going to need gas to cover. The same thing applies to solar. It doesn't matter how much you install, at 5pm on a January evening, its going to be producing zero.

What you can see from the UK is that the attempt to move to 'renewables' is an attempt to do the impossible. Its trying to run a country's electricity supply with technologies that are guaranteed to have peaks of production which coincide with lows of demand, and lows of production that coincide with peaks of demand. It is not working, and as the proportion of wind and solar rises its going to get worse.

All this is happening with the background of the program to move to EVs and heat pumps. And they also have the fantasy of a huge data center industry. Right, with expensive and unreliable electricity? Because they have also just empowered the network operator to do rolling blackouts, which they call 'demand management'.

This is what happens when you have people with degrees in literature or media studies or some kind of vague social subjects enthusiastically trying to run the power generation for an industrial economy, and having no idea how to plan and no concept of engineering. They just keep saying that the wind and sun are free - as if that had any bearing. And they keep applauding whenever wind and solar reach a peak of a day or a week or month, not seeing that that is part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Get some numbers and do some work. And read the Royal Society's report on electricity storage, which blows the idea that batteries are the answer into the air.

You would expect the same thing with tournament chess players who spend hours working hard at trying to calculate and visualize move possibilities. The process has something in common with navigation. It does involve pattern recognition also, but there is a strong element of navigation.

An interesting comparison would be with tournament bridge players who calculate but probably don't visualize in the same way. (Can't say for sure as I have only played bridge a few times, years ago.)

The hypothesis would be that spatial navigation effort safeguards, and the prediction would be that chess players will have lower rates of Alzheimers than bridge players.

I'm a citizen of a democracy, and vote on energy policy and the directors of it both locally and nationally and am in that role fully entitled to opinions on both. With or without a PhD.

And when I look at the data of wind generation in the UK what I see is blackouts coming towards the country. I do not see, and you do not explain, how a couple of GW of wind power generation during a calm is going to supply 10s of GW of demand. I do not see any plans in the UK for any measures that will fill the gap.

I am not alone. From the UK Telegraph today:
_________________________
Measures that came into effect this week give the National Energy System Operator (Neso) the authority to tackle electricity shortages with rolling power cuts around the country.
Each area would have its power switched off for three hours at a time. Neso would have to give just eight hoursâ(TM) notice to use the so-called demand control rotation protocol.
The new measures, first reported by The Guardian, are designed to bridge a gap between Nesoâ(TM)s current emergency powers and rolling-blackout plans that require government approval.
Currently, the UKâ(TM)s electricity supply emergency code, a national plan of energy rationing, can only be triggered by ministers and requires emergency legislation.
It is intended for prolonged national crises lasting more than 24 hours.
Neso, meanwhile, has the ability to disconnect up to 20pc of power at five minutesâ(TM) notice in the face of imminent system collapse, such as the nationwide shutdown seen in Spain in 2025.
Under the updated rules, Neso can activate rolling local blackouts without political approval.
___________________________

This post is not flamebait. Its sincerely held rational opinions based on the facts of the UK experience, backed up by the data readily available from gridwatch or gridwatch.templar, I understand that people would like desperately for wind to be a viable technology for industrial societies, but the verdict is coming in from the gigantic experiment, and it just isn't.

What dooms it is intermittency. Well, and high costs too.

Just look at the results of the latest UK wind auctions, and look at the estimates for building transmission capacity from the north coast of Scotland (where the turbines are) to the Midlands and South where demand is. Look at constraint payments. Look at gridwatch to see what all this is delivering. Read the Royal Society report to see what the best UK minds can come up with regarding storage.

It isn't working and it isn't going to work. Folks, you need to get out of denial and look at the facts of experience!

If they are trying to run the country on wind and solar, then on a winter evening when there is the usual blocking high and wind calm, and no solar generation, your UK friends will be trying to supply 45GW (or north of 60GW if they manage to convert everyone to EVs and heat pumps) while having only about 10GW generation. Assuming they manage to get around 100GW of wind installed, which is a real question also.

Don't believe me? Look at gridwatch. Lows from 30GW face plate wind can go as low as 0.5GW. Can be below 5GW for a week or ten days at a time.

And this is going to continue for a week or ten days, as it does almost every winter.

By day two they will not be discussing the difference between stocks and flows. They'll be discussing

"CCGT capacity in the UK is sufficient to cover the rare times when there is zero wind."

No, it isn't. Just look at gridwatch. zero wind (or close to zero) is not a rare occurrence at all.

As to enough gas, the UK has about 30-35GW of gas depending exactly how you count. Peak UK demand is around 45GW.

The UK has twice this year been on the verge of blackouts. The last one, in June, it escaped by the skin of its teeth by importing on an urgent basis from France.

Need to read the UK news. Its impossible to run a country on intermittent generation technology. Its especially impossible to do so while raising demand by moving transport and heating to electricity, and while making no or inadequate provision to cover intermittency.

The question is, what is the value of wind generated power?

The UK has real time and archived data available to anyone who really wants to answer this question. The data shows, in summary, that wind generated power is not the same as conventional or nuclear generated power. You can see it clearly here in graphical form ( and from other sources, (www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk for instance) there's the raw data available in csv format. Here's the graphical version:

www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind

What happens is that much of the time peak wind generation coincides with low demand. This leads to constraint payments, when operators are paid as if they were generating but have to turn off supply. Then, there are regular calms, several a year, lasting a week or so, when peak demand coincides with low generation. When this happens gas has to be turned up to cover. The effect of these two factors is to lower capacity factor. It doesn't appear in the usual accounts of this, and it is never reckoned with in LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) calculations. LCOE is basically accounting fraud, comparable to stuffing the channel in manufacturing. It assumes that all power generated across the life of an installation is of equal value, but it is not.

How low is low generation? As you can see from gridwatch, 30GW faceplate of wind can fall well below 1GW for quite long periods.

This is not primarily about climate. Whether you think there is a climate crisis or not, the problem is that this is not a technology that is fit for the purpose of supplying a reliable electricity system to a modern industrial economy. The problem is there is no cost effective way of dealing with intermittency. In fact, without having total backup for the wind, there is no way at all.

The way to think about this is that what is being done with wind at the moment is not a transition. What is really happening is that a functioning conventional or nuclear system is required to pretty much fully cover peak demand. The buildout of wind is basically supplementing it. The case, if there is one, for doing this is not that a cheaper method of generation will replace conventional. Its that when the wind works and coincides with demand it can reduce fuel consumption of the primary generation network.

A further problem which the UK is experiencing is that wind power locations are far removed from demand centers. So they are having to build at great expense large transmission facilities from the north coast of Scotland - for which there is no other reason than the fact that wind farms have been built there.

Does it in fact do this? Is it cost effective to build (in the case of the UK) all those turbines off the north coast of Scotland, and all that transmission to get the power down to the Midlands and South, in order to save some fuel on your main conventional network?

I have seen it claimed, but have never seen any fully costed case showing that it is. And the fuel savings themselves? Maybe a lot less than you would expect, because to accommodate the wind power fluctuations you have to have rapid start gas, which is very fuel inefficient.

Some reading this will say 'batteries'. The Royal Society considered this, and dismissed it as absurdly expensive. It was so expensive and impractical that they thought a better solution would be to excavate and seal vast caverns and fill them with stored hydrogen. They did not specify where this was to come from. The fact that they thought this a more practical solution speaks volumes about the scale of the problem. The report goes into the question of intermittency in some depth, and draws attention of the observational fact that whole seasons can be low wind.

https://royalsociety.org/-/med...

What happens if you close your eyes and go ahead anyway with trying to transition to wind? The UK is finding out. Its had two cases this year of approaching large scale blackouts because of insufficient reserve to cover fluctuations. So far its been lucky, and there is some evidence that the narrowness of the escape was covered up. But the smart money is that one of these winters luck will run out, and they will then have to cold star at scalet and, if they have had to retire their gas by then, insufficient spinning reserve. And no, you will not get spinning reserve over the Euro interconnects, they don't do that.

There may be alternative technologies which will generate the levels of reliable power our economies need. But wind is not one of them. So on the whole the Administration is right. Its expensive to cancel it, but its a lot cheaper than going ahead with it. The UK is an early warning system. Its the canary. Or if you like, its like a bystander watching the lemmings and figuring out he does not want to join in this particular rush.

A classic example of current cultural pessimism.

The present administration is said to be doing something dire - "The alleged administration never saw a math problem it could understand and has been busy cutting research funding that doesn't directly contribute to producing widgets for its industry friends."

But no numbers are shown to support this. Then there are the '"beancounters" - obviously a derogatory term, presumably for accountants, and they are supposed to be saying something completely stupid, and the sort of thing that accountants in real life never say, and if they were to, no-one would listen.

We actually need accountants. Without accountancy we would find it impossible to run a money based economy. You may not like what proper accountancy shows about a given project to which you are emotionally attached - that's one usual reason for a generalized resentment of accountants. But with all the imperfections of the profession, we need it and its a positive force.

And finally you arrive at the dire predictions which don't follow from your arguments, the attribution of racist denigration of mathematics. How you dragged racism into it? The US is going to run desperately short of mathematicians due to its approach to AI. OK, but how on earth are you to bring race into this? By arguing that the Chinese are visibly doing AI better, and that the only reason the US does not imitate them is racism about them. Oh, so its not the bean counters and the alleged administration at all - or maybe it is, but they are all motivated by racism. Or maybe its the administration that is racist too?

Its all completely incoherent, but its worth dwelling on for a few moments to see a pattern of doom laded resentment, with dire predictions associated, and no solutions, which occurs in the other great progressive issues of the day. Gender, climate/energy, race, periodically even diet, where we switch from demonizing fat to carbs to protein and back every few years.

No, there is not going to be an apocalyptic shortage of mathematicians due to the US approach to AI by this administration. There are lots of ways in which education for employment, and education in general for life, can be improved, not least by changing the attitude and objectives of the teaching profession. But we are not going to run out of mathematicians.

One can make similar points about the other great progressive issues of the day, but this is long enough and contentious enough already, so I'll leave it with that cryptic observation!

The laptop line seems to have great hardware, and I would buy it in a flash, except that I don't want what I see as an awful OS - not so much the OS itself, but the restrictions and app choices it ties you into. I know Apple enthusiasts see this differently, but I just don't understand their enthusiasm for the company.

Don't much like Windows either as OS, but sometimes for some purposes you need it, and it runs very nicely in a VM for those occasiona, and otherwise keeps out of the way.

When they let you run Linux on an Apple machine in the same way you can load Debian or whatever onto an HP or Dell, I'll buy, but the whole spirit of the company is antithetical to that -- which is why I'll never buy one as things are, and they are not going to change.

Pity about the hardware, but there you go. Some compromises are just not worth it, and they want and always have wanted too much. Whether its as in the past buying inferior hardware to get an OS you wanted, or as now, buying an OS you don't want in order to get desirable hardware, the price is always too high and the compromise too great..

"the difference between a story originating from the Guardian or some Russian bot-farm..." But how much difference is there? The Guardian is just a bot farm staffed by humans following a party line. Or they have been humans, though increasingly it seems like they too may be largely bots.

Yes, this is what the government has in mind. The Guardian, BBC and other certified righteous outfits would have to come at the top of searches. Other misinforming broadcasters like GBNews would come at the bottom with the Russian bot farms or not appear at all.

The faked news clips of Trump that the BBC broadcast would be at the top of the searches, and the stories that GBNews carries pointing out how they were faked would not feature at all.

This would be 'Verified Live', and challenging it would be misinformation. It would be sort of like the gender mafia at the BBC, but on a national scale.

And as a late great anti-psych writer once wrote: if you cannot talk about it, you cannot talk about the fact that you cannot talk about it. VPNs would be next, and pretty soon after that it would not be permitted to mention that there are such things. The Great Wall of Britain, Chinese media control with British characteristics. To protect people, or course.

The license fee is taxation tied to supporting one particular broadcaster. Its a government imposed tax on watching live TV from any broadcaster.

If you want an analogy from the cases you cite, it would be if you had to pay a tax on every newspaper purchase, whose proceeds were handed on to the Guardian. And if it were a criminal offence to read any newspaper without paying this tax. Go into a library, and you cannot read the papers without producing a paid permit. Go into a newsagent, and you cannot buy a paper without producing it.

Or it would be like a tax on shopping at any supermarket, whose proceeds went to Tesco. You would have to have a paid supermarket permit to allow you to shop at, for instance, Sainsburys or any other supermarket, and the proceeds would be given to Tesco, and it would be a criminal offence to shop at any supermarket without buying such a permit.

Or, put it another way, you would have to have a paid permit to drive a car, any car. The proceeds would be paid to Ford.

Still strikes you as reasonable? Still think its good value? For who is it good value? Its good value for all the people who like the BBC and would subscribe to it were subscription voluntary. Its good value because the other half of the country, or maybe more, are subsidizing them.

Its the great liberal tradition. Get something we want, then make everyone else pay for it whether they want it or not, call it 'public service xyz', then claim its great value. Because the fee, paid by everyone including all those who do not want or use it, is lower than the fee for, for instance, Sky. Which is only paid by those who want to watch it. So no wonder its cheaper.

Its like if beer from one brewer, every pint, half the cost was paid out of taxation, and they all go around saying what great cheap beer this is. Yes, because the whole country is paying half on every pint drawn, whether they drink it or not.

And then, immune from commercial pressures, the BBC goes around unaccountable and systematically making up fake news, and there is nothing you can do about it, if you want to watch any kind of live TV at all.

A garbage system. No wonder the French have dropped it.

its a noble effort, but you are posting to an environment where everyone here knows that wind+solar+batteries is cheaper than gas or coal, because the wind and the sun are free, and they have no fuel costs. They also know that the only people who are skeptical about this are climate deniers.

These deniers keep talking about something called Net Present Value and claiming that is the correct way to evaluate and compare costs of generating systems. Net Present Value is a concept you will find in all kinds of Corporate Finance textbooks, well, do I need to say more? Its hetero-normative, racist, patriarchal and neo-colonial, and probably Islamophobic and transphobic with it and denies indigenous wisdom. Its on the wrong side of history, like coal, gas and nukes. Of course it pretends that wind+solar+batteries is actually a very expensive technology.

Well it would, wouldn't it?

What's the problem?

All they have to do is build more wind and solar (and batteries). Everyone except a few climate denialists knows that wind+solar+batteries is far cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear and can generate all the electricity anyone could conceivably need from free fuel, the sun and the air.

There is absolutely no need to restrict the installation of data centers, and there is no reason whatever why their power demands should raise prices. In fact, they should lower prices, because they will be at the spearhead of the energy transition, because it will lead to a larger and larger proportion of generation moving away from legacy technology to cheap clean power.

This is so obvious to us all here on Slashdot that its a mystery why the local politicians don't see it too.

AI claims that you can still buy AZW books and read them on one of these old Kindles. The claim is that if you buy from your PC account for the old Kindle it will be supplied as AZW, which will be readable on the device after transfer to it from the PC by USB.

The claim is that what has changed is that you can no longer buy directly from the Kindle, because purchases are now KFX only. But that you can still buy books for it over the web using your PC and they will be supplied as AZW.

If this is really true, the change is not only not a bad thing, its positively a good thing, because the account details on the old Kindles were stored very insecurely so it was a real security hazard wandering around with this very stealable device with all your Amazon credentials stored in open format.

Is it true? It was true before the latest change, but is it still?