Exemption granted by the FIA due to potential damage if removed.

Sadly while it may have appeared to be to stop littering and protect the environment it wasn't.

It was the plastics lobby shifting the blame onto consumers for plastic waste and littering because there has started to be some ideas of banning it or taxing it.

Yes, it's always measured point to point.

My guess is the airline didn't have a process to approve landing at another airport.

Landing fees, storage, maintenance, and next flights on the schedule would all have been affected.

Plane probably usually flies back and forth already.

An admin looked at the schedule and realised they had to cancel the return flight already. They don't need the plane there it'll fly back empty.

Then there's the cost of landing at a different airport and unloading passengers, luggage etc. transporting them all onwards to the right place.

It's not difficult to see that to return the plane and passengers to their departure lounge and cancel the outgoing flight too was the cheapest option.

They are required by law to hold some in reserve for emergencies and redirections.

I think an investigation was launched when a drone caused a significant number of flights to redirect from Gatwick London, to Heathrow London and some aircraft skipped the holding queue due to running low on reserves.

Because a significant number had to divert they had to divert and wait in a holding pattern.

I don't think anyone broke the rules but I think some changes were made as those who ran the lowest fuel (to save weight and cost) also ended up with priority landing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/london-gatwick-airport-grounds-flights-due-to-drone-intrusion.html

I don't think anyone broke the rules but changes were made at the airport to redirect further away sooner rather than using waiting patterns.

This article's video isn't loading for me which is a shame.

TLDR; they have to have some spare in case of stuff.

Just a hope that Boris might have picked better pay masters this time.

If he's a Ukrainian shill now it might not be a bad thing, although I don't think he's worth his salary.

Dragon Capital own the news site so they could afford him.

The one who had undocumented meetings with Russia's foreign minister while he was Prime Minister and took large Russian donations to campaign funds?

The one who's party is still preventing the release of the report into Russian funding for the UK's exit of the EU.

Who's paying for his campaign this time, Pravda.com.us?

H20 joins the precipitation cycle but due to increasing temperatures there is more H2O in the atmosphere than before on average.

So yes. We do have more atmosphere than before.

Both by mass and by number of molecules.

The energy we've put into the system will eventually go back to the previous equilibrium after hundreds of years. So it's temporary on the earth's timescale at the moment.

Unless we put too much energy in then it releases more energy, methane released, ice caps melted, less heat reflected, and the change becomes more of an earth timescale one than a human timescale one.

We turned solid stuff (Hydrocarbons) into atmosphere. CO2 and H20

The volume of both of those things in the atmosphere has increased.

There are literally tons of Carbon released into the atmosphere and while it will come down eventually we do have more atmosphere than before.

As I said having a reaction to sweeteners makes you an edge case and they can easily find sugary drinks without sweeteners. If they don't like a recipe they shouldn't buy it.

Perhaps they have to check the label a bit more but frankly so should we all.

You can't have it both ways. If the price is the same and the manufacturer has more incentive to sell you a healthier untaxed product, or the price is different in which case the consumer has the incentive to buy the healthier product.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/620155/share-of-diet-soft-drinks-in-the-united-kingdom/

There is a question over if this trend needed the tax in order to continue or not, but the switch to diet drinks looks likely to happen regardless.

But the fact that regardless of whether the incentive lies with the consumer or the manufacturer the trend is in the right direction.

People have generally realised they aren't healthy and just like alcohol, we're consuming less.

You're moaning about a tiny tax that benefits society as a whole, actually being largely paid by those 3 conglomerates while prices remain the same. I genuinely don't understand your problem.

Either this tax is working, which is good. Or it's not but still gaining additional tax revenue from some multinationals, which is also good.

Or we could hail corporate, more obese children I guess. All so your friend doesn't have to check a label to avoid a migraine.

People drinking the occasional glass won't notice the tax. It's pennies.

The tax is well calibrated in this case to affect the ones most at risk of harm.

And manufacturers now sell both drinks for the same price and make more profit off a diet drink. What effect do you think that's going to have? More healthy options, more advertising of healthy options.

The fact diet coke and sugar coke cost the same in most cases is proof not all the cost is passed onto the customer. If it were they'd be undercut by a company willing to sell their diet drinks at a lower price than their sugar ones.

Actually the numbers on rising cases of diabetes disagree with you.

Any country that provides healthcare (Even the US, they spend more on socialised medicine than most countries.) Should tax things which are unhealthy. Tobacco, alcohol, refined sugar. The tax the manufacturers pay goes part way to paying for the treatment of those who consume the product and part way to reducing consumption.

The company profits and should have to pay externalities.

People don't tend to drink large quantities of orange juice because it's sickly.

Coke, with the bitterness of caffeine and carbonated water to balance out the sugar, is designed to be drunk in larger quantities.

But by all means limit the portion size of orange juice to 200-250ml, as is the norm and so the same with that 330ml can of coke.

Neither drink is suitable for you if you're thirsty, and if you want a treat a small portion is enough for the taste.

Diabetes is caused by sugar spikes more than just unhealthy weight.

Arguably, sugar in that concentration isn't safe for her either.

Someone who lives a lifestyle where they can legitimately healthily consume that much sugar and can't consume sweeteners does exist. And you might know them. But they'll be among a small number of edge cases.

This tax benefits a lot of people.

The reason sugar won't wash away as easily is it will already be sticking to other things in the pipe.

Sugar has hydrogen bonds so any small amount that does dissolve in the alcohol will readily stick to other things.

Sugar will also easily dissolve with any water already in the pipe.

Once sugar has stuck to other things it may technically no longer be sugar but it will still be there.

Salt might react but generally the NaCl bond is pretty common because neither readily reacts with much else.

Flourine from any fluorides around maybe and heavier earth metals but generally, and water and the ions will just stay pretty close to each other in solution.

Hydrogen bonds like other hydrogen bonds and lots of stuff has hydrogen bonds.

Russia without the current regime would be much, much richer.

Oligarchs get their money from somewhere.

I think Germany finished paying reparation debts in 2010.

Russia could take the same amount of time or much, much, less to pay for rebuilding Ukraine.

It all depends who is in charge and where Russia's money goes.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/antonov-an-225-largest-plane-destroyed-ukraine-scli-intl/index.html

So according to that article, it's currently the largest until Russia is forced to pay to restore the 225.

Actual terf or just had a different opinion on trans women competing in sports to some.

I see a lot of female athletes being called slurs like "terf" for some pretty nuanced and balanced opinions these days so I feel the need to ask.

A minor correction to your comment.

Left alone the cycle repeats roughly every 25 hours for the average person. In a cave that would be the default sleep pattern. Not 24 hours.

The rest of what you say is pretty spot on but it's important to realise we have a clock that needs active sync, not a 24 hour clock that can look after itself.

A number of factors like blue light hitting your retina, body temperature, when you eat and when you exercise can effect this.

But light is the most powerful cue. The circadian clock in everyone is essentially one that runs at a slow rhythm. But light inhibits melatonin production and darkness accelerates it.

As well as melatonin there's cortisol triggered to wake you up. There's seratonin released in response to light when you're meant to be awake.

This is a concern as we moved away from incandescent lighting as the wavelength of light we're meant to see when the sun is out is more prevalent at home, from screens, in street and car lighting. Etc

https://www.news-medical.net/health/How-Does-the-Suprachiasmatic-Nucleus-(SCN)-Control-Circadian-Rhythm.aspx

Messing with light can get our melatonin, cortizol, and seratonin out of sync with each other. Leading to poor sleep and all the other effects from that.

For good sleep get a good light cycle, then clean air, then temperature, then noise right. So many people think of those in reverse.

Planes are the only transport you listed where it's not feasible and H2 lacks density for that application as well.

Ships have acres of space, trains can absolutely use batteries where lines can't be electrified, they're miles long.

If you want to replace fossil fuels from an energy density point of view you're talking biofuels.

There's a lot of lithium on planet earth and batteries are recyclable so an asteroid isn't necessary.

It's all a moot point until we overbuild renewables supply. As well as overproducing food if we want to use biomass and biofuels.

I'm not saying hydrogen isn't a partial solution, I'm saying it's not a primary solution.

We really need to move forward with battery technology as it is the primary solution.

It really doesn't matter what sunk costs anyone has into fossil fuels we should aim for the most efficient solution to ensure costs are low.

Converting current plants to hydrogen will happen when hydrogen is cheaper than fossil fuels. So we're relying on the price/kW dropping a long way. Hydrogen becoming economically viable relies on other technologies. It's not a stepping stone.

I agree we're going to need all the tools but ignoring round trip efficiency because renewables are "plentiful and easy" isn't right.

Renewables cost money. Renewable energy will cost money.

On demand renewable energy will cost more money.

We all need to be able to afford energy.

So the cost of generating power from a renewable source, storing it, then deploying it to match demand cannot be a wasteful process.

The goal is to be able to replace fossil fuels and we can't afford to do that if we make energy more expensive and cause a permanent recession.

The cost of renewables with roundtrip efficiency is the direct price comparison to on-demand gas plants as they currently are.

The fact H2 is likely to just be figuratively shoved into a gas plant as you suggest is actually a huge problem economically speaking. It means you're maintaining infrastructure nearly identical to the fossil fuel system we have with a more expensive fuel.

It can't be cheaper until fossil fuels are scarce enough we've torched the planet already.

Other storage options allow greater round trip efficiency and allow a potentially lower price/kW for on demand power.

I want us to fix climate change by taxing carbon and pricing externalities or by consumer choice refusing fossil fuels.

I know that's not likely. So my hope is with investment direct price comparison on a near like to like market application leads to renewables as soon as possible.

Hydrogen doesn't offer that future. Lithium and salt batteries with wind and solar could.

Subsidies for zero carbon energy or a carbon tax could bring hydrogen into the market but I know globally, especially in the US, that kind of government intervention isn't likely.

Subsidies into R&D for technologies capable of beating fossil fuels in a market with a level field are what I want to see. Once a technology is proven it needs no government intervention to enter a market.

Hydrogen I don't see as a stepping stone, it's likely something we use once economies of scale for fossil fuels no longer exist. After we've already created abundance of energy to make hydrogen cheaper than digging up fossils.

The hydrogen electrolysers will probably average out to be around 75% efficient at best is my guess even with the recent headlines but that's still good enough compared to the fuel cells around ~50%.

So being favourable and allowing a boost to 80% one way and ~60% the other you're still looking at losing half the energy.

Pumped storage is around 90% for a round trip.

More flexible gravity storage with weights and hills is around 80%

Lithium-ion is around 95%.

This is going to be an economic fight. What is the cost of producing and maintenance of lithium ion batteries at scale. Is that more expensive than the equipment and materials required to produce and store hydrogen to the point where hydrogen based solutions can run at a 50% efficiency.

There is also the potential for cheaper batteries at grid level storage. Molten salt batteries operate around 85% efficiency and could have much cheaper raw materials.

We don't actually waste much excess energy. At least in Europe.

There is a small amount of grid level storage in hydroelectric. So when real time prices drop with demand there is a customer to buy it.

There is generally an undersupply topped up with fossil fuels.

We obviously want to end up with an oversupply but that's a rare occurrence because we can very quickly turn off gas fired stations and the overrun ends up getting bought up for storage.

There is a massive incentive to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation.

It limits the ideal growth of nuclear to countries we don't mind having access to Armageddon.

Stable democracies without any colonial intention.

The world will be much better off pouring the still high start up costs for nuclear into R&D for renewables and storage.

Gone to meet the DJ in the sky.