SteamyTea

Which is what I was taught to do in the early 1980s. Does it recognise flow diagrams, assuming they are done correctly? Once saw a comment in a database that said "this is shit code"

I hate coding, even though I do appreciate what can be achieved with it. But as computer coding is a logical processes, is AI not showing up it's weakness but not being able to write some scripts easily? Or is it that most programming languages are so full of contradictions that the whole industry needs to have a word with itself.

Some food for though there. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/gas-share-in-global-power-mix-has-declined-for-a-fifth-consecutive-year/ This analysis examines how the role of gas in the global power sector is changing as renewable electricity expands across major economies. It explores long-term trends in gas-fired generation globally and across key markets, including the G7, China, India and Brazil. Summary Gas’s role in the global power mix is declining The share of gas in the global power mix declined for the fifth consecutive year in 2025, despite a small rise in absolute gas generation. Strong growth in clean power, led by solar and wind, met around 68% of global electricity demand growth over the last five years (2021-2025), reducing the need for a significant rise in gas power generation. 2025 was the fifth consecutive year of decline in gas share in the global power mix. Although global gas generation has not yet peaked in absolute terms, its growth has slowed sharply. Between 2021 and 2025, gas generation grew at an average annual rate of 1.6%, about half the average growth rate seen between 2016 and 2020 (2.9%). Because gas grew more slowly than electricity demand, its share of global electricity generation fell from 23.9% in 2020 to 21.8% in 2025. Nearly half of gas-generating economies have passed their gas power peak. By 2025, 61 out of 124 economies generating electricity from gas had passed their gas generation peak, defined in this analysis as countries where gas-fired electricity generation has remained below its historical peak for at least five consecutive years. Together, these countries accounted for around one-fifth of global gas-fired electricity generation in 2025, showing that gas declines are widespread, but the global peak still depends on a smaller group of large gas-generating economies. Renewables are close to overtaking gas power in the G7. The G7 accounted for 37% of global gas-fired electricity generation in 2025. Four G7 gas import-dependent economies — the UK, Germany, Italy and Japan — have remained below their historical gas generation peaks for at least five consecutive years. Across the G7 as a whole, gas has not yet peaked, but there are growing signs of a plateau. Its share fell for a second consecutive year, while generation also declined in 2025. At the same time, renewable power has grown consistently and, in 2025, generated almost as much electricity (2,544 TWh) as gas power (2,577 TWh), helping clean power overtake fossil power in the G7 electricity mix. Brazil, China and India are meeting rising electricity demand without turning to gas. The world’s three largest emerging economies, which accounted for 42% of global electricity demand in 2025, continue to grow while maintaining relatively low levels of gas generation in their power systems. China’s gas share remained close to 3% of the electricity mix in 2025 despite rapid demand growth. In India and Brazil, gas has already peaked and now plays a more limited balancing role. The economics and energy security case for electricity are increasingly moving in the same direction. As renewables lower costs and reduce exposure to fuel price shocks and geopolitical disruptions, gas is steadily losing the advantages that once made it the default fuel for power system growth. Malgorzata Wiatros-Motyka ‍Senior Electricity Analyst, Ember Recent geopolitical disruptions have also reinforced the downward trend in gas by exposing the price volatility and energy security risks associated with import-dependent gas systems. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered major gas supply disruptions and price spikes, accelerating renewables deployment in Europe and Asia. More recently, LNG disruptions linked to the US-Israel war with Iran in 2026 are expected to further accelerate this shift. Together, these trends suggest that gas is increasingly shifting from a source of structural growth in the power sector towards a balancing role alongside expanding renewable electricity systems. The world is nearing the gas power peak 2025 marked the fifth consecutive year of decline in gas share in the global electricity mix, as clean power grew faster than electricity demand, limiting the need for a significant rise in gas generation and suggesting that the world may be nearing a peak in gas-fired power. Global electricity demand more than doubled over the last two decades, increasing from 15,279 TWh in 2000 to 31,774 TWh in 2025, driven by industrialisation, rising living standards and electrification. Historically, much of this demand growth was met by fossil fuels, including gas. However, the role of gas in meeting new electricity demand is now changing as renewable power scales up rapidly across most countries. Global gas power growth is slowing as clean electricity meets more demand Since 2000, gas-fired electricity generation has continued to increase globally, but its role in meeting new electricity demand has weakened. Between 2001 and 2005, gas accounted for an average 33% of growth in global electricity demand at a time when renewable deployment remained limited. In the decade following the Paris Agreement, several advanced economies expanded gas generation as part of efforts to reduce coal use or diversify power systems. Between 2016 and 2020, gas still accounted for an average 31% of growth in new electricity demand. However, as renewables deployment accelerated globally, gas accounted for only about 11% of demand growth between 2021 and 2025. In 2025, gas accounted for less than 5% of global electricity demand growth, increasing by only 38 TWh (+0.6%). Solar alone grew by 636 TWh (+30%), 17 times more than gas, and met around 75% of global electricity demand growth. Because gas generation grew more slowly than demand, its share in the global power mix fell for the fifth consecutive year, from 23.9% in 2020 to 21.8% in 2025. Although global gas generation has not yet peaked in absolute terms, these trends suggest that gas power is losing momentum as a source of global growth and may be approaching a structural peak. Geopolitical disruptions have reinforced the downward trend in gas by exposing the price volatility and energy security risks associated with import-dependent gas systems. Major economies, including Germany, India, Japan and South Korea, have been committing to faster deployment of renewable sources as a response. Gas share in the power mix is stagnating or falling in most regions Gas share in power mixes is stagnating or declining as new demand is increasingly met by sources other than gas, particularly renewables. This suggests that gas is no longer the primary route for meeting rising electricity demand across much of the world. In traditionally coal-heavy regions such as Asia and Oceania, falling coal generation has not translated into a larger role for gas. Gas remained a relatively limited share of the regional power mix in 2025, accounting for 10.2% in Asia (down from 13.9% in 2015) and 15.1% in Oceania (down from 18.5% in 2015). In Europe, gas power share peaked in 2010 at 28.4% of the electricity mix, equivalent to 1,443 TWh. Since then, generation has fallen in absolute terms to 1,212 TWh, accounting for 23.8% of the mix. Falls in gas power occurred alongside coal power’s decline as clean power scaled up. In Latin America and the Caribbean, gas power share peaked in 2015 at 28.6% of the mix, equivalent to 460 TWh. As electricity demand continued to expand, gas power peaked in absolute terms in 2019, reaching 474 TWh or 28.2% of the mix. Since then, it has fallen to 448 TWh and 24.3% of the mix in 2025, as much of the region’s growing demand has been met by clean sources. In contrast, gas power is rising in North America, parts of the Middle East and Africa. This is especially evident in the US and Canada, where gas remains central to the power sector due to abundant domestic resources. In parts of the Middle East, gas has been used to replace some oil-fired generation, while in North Africa and parts of West Africa, domestic gas continues to support rising electricity demand. Nearly half of gas power-generating economies have passed their gas generation peak By 2025, 61 of 124 economies generating electricity from gas are now below their gas-generation peaks. Together, these countries accounted for around one-fifth of global gas-fired electricity generation in 2025. This shows that gas peaks are already widespread, but most generation remains concentrated in large economies that are still growing or have not yet clearly peaked. The largest declines since peak gas generation occurred in Japan (-127 TWh), followed by the UK (-85 TWh), India (-69 TWh), Spain (-59 TWh) and Italy (-48 TWh) — all economies exposed to imported gas or international gas prices. Japan recorded the largest absolute fall from the peak. Gas-fired generation peaked in 2017 at 464 TWh (43% of the electricity mix) before falling to 338 TWh (33%) in 2025. The decline reflected the restart of some nuclear reactors following the Fukushima disaster in 2011, alongside rapid solar expansion and falling electricity demand. In the UK, Spain and Italy, falling gas generation also coincided with declining coal generation and rising renewable electricity output. In the UK, the gas share fell from 176 TWh (45% of the electricity mix) in 2008 to 91 TWh (31%) in 2025, while coal was phased out completely in 2024 as offshore wind and other renewables expanded. Post-2015 gas growth has been concentrated in a few large markets In the decade after the Paris Agreement, gas continued to rise, but growth was concentrated. In some countries, particularly the US, gas expanded as coal declined or electricity systems diversified. In others, gas growth fell for country-specific reasons, including nuclear generation recovery and the strong growth in renewables. The US recorded the largest increase in gas generation between 2015 and 2025, with gas-fired electricity rising by 474 TWh — equivalent to just under one-third of global gas growth over the period. In the same period, the gas share in the US electricity mix increased from 33% to 40%, while coal share halved from 33% to 16%. China recorded the second largest increase, but gas remained a relatively small share of its electricity mix. Gas generation in China rose by 167 TWh over the decade, with its share rising from 2.9% to 3.2% between 2015 and 2025. Between 2015 and 2025, gas-fired generation in Japan fell by 80 TWh as nuclear reactors gradually restarted and solar deployment accelerated. Outside advanced economies, Viet Nam recorded one of the sharpest declines in gas reliance, where gas generation fell from 30% of the country’s electricity mix in 2015 to 6% in 2025, while both coal and renewable generation expanded rapidly to meet rising electricity demand. Other declines were spread across a diverse group of economies, including Venezuela, Brazil, Türkiye, India, the UK, Belarus, Belgium and Colombia. Gas generation is slowing in major power markets Renewables close to surpassing gas generation in G7 The G7 accounted for 37% of global gas-fired electricity generation in 2025, despite representing only around 10% of the world’s population. The US alone accounted for 26% of global gas power in 2025. Gas remains a significant share of the mix and has not yet reached a peak in generation, but there are growing signs of a plateau. Gas generation across the G7 expanded largely as a replacement for coal generation, particularly in the decade following the Paris Agreement. In 2025, gas generation in the G7 fell by 50 TWh, from 2,627 TWh to 2,577 TWh, leading to a small fall in the gas share of the power mix from 34.3% in 2024 to 32.9% in 2025. That is a decline for the second year in a row, as the share in 2023 was at 34.5%. At the same time, renewable power has grown consistently and generated almost as much electricity (2,544 TWh) as gas power (2,577 TWh) in 2025, helping clean power overtake fossil power in the G7 electricity mix. Additionally, four G7 gas import-dependent economies — the UK, Germany, Italy and Japan — have remained below their historical gas generation peaks for at least five consecutive years. Large emerging economies are growing with limited reliance on gas Brazil, China and India are increasing electricity demand while maintaining relatively low levels of gas generation in their power systems. China’s gas share remained close to 3% (334 TWh) of the electricity mix in 2025, despite rapid demand growth. In India, gas power peaked in 2010 at 12.6% of the electricity mix, or 118 TWh, and has since declined to 2.3% (49 TWh) in 2025. In Brazil, the gas share peaked in 2014 at 13.7% of the mix (81 TWh), and currently stands at 7.3% (55 TWh). All three economies rely to varying degrees on gas imports, while most new electricity demand is increasingly met by clean power. This suggests that even fast-growing electricity systems are not locked into gas reliance. As renewable deployment accelerates alongside grid expansion, storage and other flexibility solutions, the future role of gas in the power sector is likely to become more limited, regionally uneven and increasingly shaped by energy security and economic considerations. Supporting materials About Ember Ember is an independent energy think tank that aims to accelerate the clean energy transition with data and policy. Its vision is a clean, electrified energy system for all. It gathers, curates and analyses data on the global energy system, publishing this openly and accessibly. It uses data-driven insights to shift the conversation towards high impact policies and empower other advocates to do the same. Founded in 2008 as Sandbag, it formerly focused on analysing and reforming the EU carbon market, before rebranding as Ember in 2020. Its diverse team brings together energy analysts, data scientists, communicators and team-builders based around the world in over 20 countries, including Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Poland, South Africa, Türkiye, the UK and US. Methodology General methodology Electricity generation data for countries, regions and the world is based on Ember’s yearly data. Data is gathered for 215 countries, with latest 2025 data for 91 countries, including national transmission system operators, statistical agencies and data aggregators such as ENTSO-E. In some cases, published data was not available for the full reported timeframe; here, we have estimated recent years using Ember’s own generation forecasting model. Regional and world data is largely based on actual reported data, with Ember’s yearly data covering countries representing more than 90% of global electricity demand. Other countries are estimated. A full methodology on data sources and methods is available here. Note on electricity source classification Bioenergy has typically been assumed (by the IPCC, the IEA and many others) to be a renewable energy source, as forest and energy crops can be regrown and replenished, unlike fossil fuels. It is included in many governmental climate targets, including EU renewable energy legislation. Ember, therefore, includes it in “renewables” to allow easy comparison with legislated targets. However, we recognise that the IPCC-reported lifecycle carbon intensity of bioenergy is significantly higher than other renewables and nuclear, and this is incorporated into our power sector emissions estimate. More information about Ember’s classification of electricity sources can be found in the full methodology for Ember’s monthly electricity data under “Fuel Types”. Gas usage peak definition and caveats If absolute gas generation remains below its peak output for at least five years since a country’s initial gas power peak, it is considered to have passed its peak. Falls in gas generation for some economies may have been caused by external factors such as war, civil unrest or recession. For these countries, such as Ukraine or Yemen, data reporting can be limited, is largely based on estimates and has significantly lower accuracy. Some economies reported to be past a peak in gas power may have replaced domestic gas generation with electricity imports. Acknowledgements Ember: Richard Black, Raul Miranda, Rashmi Mishra, Dave Jones, Sarah Brown, Wilmar Suárez, Nicolas Fulghum, Libby Copsey, Lauren Orso, Muyi Yang, Neshwin Rodrigues, Ardhi Arsala Rahmani, Claire Kaelin We thank our external reviewers: Toby Lockwood (CATF), Scott Smouse (Enerconnex Global, LLC, formerly with the US DoE), Sanjay Pande (Independent Researcher and Consultant, formerly with NTPC Limited, India) Cover image Canetti / Getty images

"You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings" Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley

And parking them. Hard to imagine then getting from Land's End International to the Isles of Scilly when the wind is 40MPH.

How_to_Lie_with_Statistics_-_Darrell_Huff.pdf

Based on consumption per revenue passenger kilometre. Read the Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft An Airbus 380 on a long haul flight uses 3.27 l/100 km (86.39 British MPG) I went to Australia and back in a 747-400, that does 3.76 l/100km, which is 75 MPG. That is about the same as my car does on an upcountry run, though it does around 10 MPG less locally. The route I took to Sydney was via San Francisco, and the route back was via Kuala Lumpur, a total of 23,458 miles or 37,752 km. That works out at 1,420 litre of fuel. That flight was for work, and was, nearly 25 years ago (where has my life vanished, I booked the flight just after 911 and got it for $400. I also got bumped off the flight, got my $400 back and an upgrade to 1st Class to KL and then Business Class to Heathrow). Since then, I have probably driven 625,000 miles in various cars, the worse on economy was my little Corsa Automatic, it struggled to do 40 MPG (and was a lot worse around London), but all the other have easily done 50 MPG. So about 2270 lt/year, which is 5.6 l/100km. Should have stayed in Australia.

And remember that it has about 50V flowing though it, so can tingle.

Upstairs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0014pgk As for the rest, just do it. Been a long times since the GPO can lock someone up.

We have huge subsidies. https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/transport-parking-and-streets/public-transport/cornwalls-transport-services/enhanced-partnership-and-bus-service-improvement-plan/ A new allocation of £10.59m Bus Grant funding for 2025/26 has been awarded to Cornwall Council. This includes: £9.72m BSIP funding - £5.48m revenue funding will be focused on maintaining the existing bus network. £4.24m capital funding will improve access and deliver upgrades to: bus stations bus stops and real-time passenger information screens £0.87m funding to include: Bus Services Operators Grant (BSOG) to support tendered bus services. As well as an allocation to support BSIP delivery. About £17 quid each. They may be spending the money on the wrong things.

Spend more on your kitchen then.

Whoops, 10 times. Fat fingers.

How many were on the bus. A bus does about 6MPG, my car over 20 times that. So has to be 10 people on bus at all times.

The best teachers are the ones that are remembered. Both of those are happening, just not at the right pace.

So no solution then. Personally I think education is the answer.

As in a milage allowance, or an emissions allowance?

Expand on that?

What is your solution to reduce emissions and curb climate change then?

I buy Motorola phones, the battery life is excellent, and not one of them has cost more than £100. I charge them in the car with an adapter and lead from Poundland. Had to buy a new lead as the newer phone is USB C, so got one with 3 tails on it. C, micro and one for an iPhone. So can charge my phone, Kindle, camera and vape. Can also transfer data between devices. No idea if the Lightning plug works, don't allow those people into my car.

If Rasmus Errboe, the CEO of Ørsted flies a bit to promote thier business, there is an environmental gain. If Christopher Harborne, the CEO of Sherriff Global Group, flies a bit, there is an environmental loss. Both of those probably pale into rounding errors when just the UK holiday season starts. https://www.traveldailynews.com/statistics-trends/quot-great-british-holiday-audit-quot-reveals-how-brits-will-travel-in-2025/ Probably be similar this year.

Among people of high socioeconomic status, love for nature corresponds with a bigger environmental footprint – and there's an obvious reason why By Alec Luhn 27 May 2026 Private jets are the most carbon-intensive way to travel Steve Allen / Alamy People who care the most about the environment also do the most environmental damage with their jet-setting lifestyle, at least among those with the highest income and education. But rather than being a critique of environmentalism, this finding shows that changing policy is more important than changing values when it comes to halting the climate and biodiversity crises, scientists say. “We do not want to suggest that individuals are solely responsible for their carbon footprints”, since low-carbon alternatives to activities like flying are often still hard to find, says Malte Dewies at the University of Cambridge, one of the researchers behind the new work. In fact, the term “carbon footprint” was popularised by BP to shift responsibility to consumers. It’s long been known that a person’s footprint tends to increase with their income. This study, however, brought personal beliefs into the equation. Researchers first asked 5000 people across Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US about their income, wealth, education and job prestige to establish their socioeconomic status. Then they asked them about their views on nature, climate and wastefulness. Finally, they asked about factors like meat and dairy consumption, house size, trash generation, vehicle use and hours spent flying to estimate a broad “ecological footprint”. For most respondents, the more importance they placed on preserving nature, the lower their ecological footprint. But among the top 30 per cent by socioeconomic status, the people who cared the most about the environment had an even larger footprint than their peers. The main reason was that high-income nature lovers fly frequently, one of the most emissions-intensive individual activities. They may be justifying this by dedicating themselves to activities like recycling that barely reduce their footprint, says Dewies. Environmentalism is “a universalistic value, and that means these are also the people who are open-minded, who want to interact with people from different cultures, who typically have friends in different countries and who fly more”, says Felix Creutzig at the University of Sussex, UK, who wasn’t involved in the research. Earlier research hypothesised that environmental impacts first increase but later curve downward as a country gets richer and has more money to invest in sustainable alternatives, a trend dubbed the “environmental Kuznets curve”. Some have suggested this could apply to people as well, but Dewies and his colleagues say the results contradict this idea. “Targeting the environmental attitudes of individuals with campaigns will not do the job” of reducing emissions, says team member Micha Kaiser at the University of Cambridge. “We need at some point to come up with stronger measures.” Countries like the UK and Germany have raised taxes on aviation, and airfares have increased 24 per cent due to the Iran war energy crisis. The researchers said the price hikes probably aren’t enough to put off high-income air passengers, however. In 2023, France banned short-haul flights, but loopholes meant no routes were actually cancelled. Carlo Aall at the Western Norway Research Institute says policy interventions won’t avert climate catastrophe and that the research is instead an argument for degrowth, the idea that countries should reduce energy and resource consumption even at the cost of shrinking their economies. “Even the environmentalists cannot escape from the hamster wheel” of consumerism, he says. The researchers admit their results could bolster perceptions that environmentalists are hypocrites, discouraging climate action. Climate philanthropists like Bill Gates have been bashed for flying on private jets, a rapidly growing aviation sector, including to the landmark 2015 Paris climate summit. But Creutzig points out that the Fridays For Future protests started by Greta Thunberg pushed the German government to adopt climate legislation, even though not every demonstrator swore off flying like Thunberg did. “Being a citizen with an active voice matters more than [consumer] behaviour,” he says. Journal reference: Nature Communications Earth & Environment DOI: 10.1038/s43247-026-03521-z

Are you sure, you started this topic on the 15th February 2026. That is 110 days, or 2640 hours, or 158400 minutes or 9504000 seconds. Coldplay have been on tour 15 times over the same period.

When making comparisons, three things have to be taken into account, the local wages, purchasing price parity and the amount used. A quick search got me some monthly household wage data. If that is divided by the cost of a unit of electricity, the more it can buy, the cheaper it really is. Country Wage/kWh Luxembourg 17965 Netherlands 12871 Malta 12195 Finland 11431 Denmark 11133 Hungary 11002 United Kingdom 10469 Sweden 10227 France 9428 Austria 7952 Croatia 7926 Ireland 7725 Belgium 7498 Germany 7474 Bulgaria 7274 Slovenia 7258 Estonia 7120 Lithuania 6909 Spain 6500 Cyprus 6429 Slovakia 6109 Italy 5630 Poland 5489 Czechia 4831 Portugal 4813 Latvia 4589 Greece 4253 Romania 3128 But once usage is taken into account, the rankings change. At 3.3% of household wage, our electricity is cheaper than the norm. Even if we doubled the price to take into account of standing charges, we are still only slightly higher than our long term average of around 5% of earnings. Interestingly, Finland and Sweden have the highest usages and the most expensive electricity, but they may have very low gas usage. Country % of Wage Wage Luxembourg 1.0 Hungary 1.9 Malta 2.7 United Kingdom 3.3 Lithuania 3.8 Croatia 4.0 Denmark 4.2 Netherlands 4.8 Estonia 5.3 Cyprus 5.6 Latvia 6.1 Ireland 6.3 Bulgaria 6.5 Italy 6.6 Germany 6.6 Belgium 6.9 Poland 6.9 Romania 7.0 Slovakia 7.3 France 7.6 Spain 7.7 Slovenia 8.0 Austria 8.4 Portugal 8.5 Finland 10.7 Greece 11.5 Czechia 12.3 Sweden 13.1

As the question ends with a question mark, you know it does not Here are the EU prices. https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/01/germany-is-a-leader-in-renewables-so-why-does-it-have-one-of-the-highest-eu-electricity-pr Below are the full EU rankings: Ireland: €0.40 Germany: €0.39 Belgium: €0.35 Denmark: €0.33 Austria: €0.33 Czechia: €0.32 Italy: €0.30 Romania: €0.29 Cyprus: €0.28 Sweden: €0.27 Poland: €0.27 Spain: €0.27 Luxembourg: €0.27 France: €0.26 Netherlands: €0.26 Latvia: €0.25 Portugal: €0.24 Greece: €0.24 Estonia: €0.23 Finnland: €0.23 Slovenia: €0.21 Lithuania: €0.20 Slovakia: €0.19 Croatia: €0.17 Bulgaria: €0.14 Malta: €0.13 Hungary: €0.11 The UK is currently £0.24.67 with is €0.29/kWh. The same as Romania. https://energyguide.org.uk/average-cost-electricity-kwh-uk/