MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Ed Milliband has been saying live on TV that we should go back to 1970's levels of air travel! As you probably know, whilst the rest of the world is waiving fuel duties on air travel, we are keeping ours. In fact they a going up substantially in the not too distant future. A good few airlines will have to go bust and a whole chunk of the economy will disappear if we go back to 1970's levels of air travel!
The conflict I see is that the government is simultaneously supporting the expansion of airports such as Stanstead and Heathrow. So are we to reduce air travel after building these new runways?? Maybe it's just another bit of plausible "green speak" political rhetoric and the reality is that air travel will continue to remain high and the government will just collect more revenue, especially by the forthcoming increases in so called environmental duties. A family of four flying to Austrailia will pay £320 in "green" taxes, but they will stil fly and the fuel will still get burned.
Also, eash houshold will see a £75 increase in their fuel bills to fund renewable energy sources. No mention of investment in nuclear energy - by far the cheapest, least invasive and reliable method of clean energy production.
TAXING ENERGY USE DOESN'T MAKE IT GREENER, DOESN'T REDUCE EMISSIONS, IT JUST MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE USER AND THE REVENUE COLLECT MORE MONEY!
If they REALLY did want to reduce emissions, they'd make bold moves like banning all cars with fuel inefficient engines, [u]force[/u] people to have the maximum insulation in their homes and fit condensing boilers now etc. A 50mph national speed limit for cars and trains would cut emissions substantially.
I'll give you an example of my own experience recently. 1st trip to the Lakes in ten years last week (275 miles each way): My 1.9 diesel car, there and back driving at 60-70mph and a bit of gentle local driving with two people and loads of camping kit - £75. My mate's gas guzzling 5L Mercedes 2 seater with one person, driven at 85mph whenever possible - £300! I'd have driven slower if I hadn't been delayed waiting for my other mate to show up, but the wastage of energy on the other vehicle was still 4 times as much (8 times if you factor in the passenger numbers). He chose this car to "have some fun". He wanted a "nice car". Damned selfish if you ask me! He's loaded and can afford it so he's still driving it and still grossly polluting. It's simple, ban 5L cars because nothing else will prevent them being used! You can have bucket loads of fun in a smaller sports car and use much less energy, so there is no case for them. And Mercedes make an even bigger version now (6.7L) WTF!!!!!!!!
No radical moves will ever take place because these would deprive the revenue of lots of cash and would damage the economy. Give me a government that is open and honest and that has balls! Dream on!
I'm all for going green, but i really don't think we are doing anything like enough to get the problem in check. In addition to this, the only way these changes will make a measurable difference is for the whole world to follow suit. Dream on!
Taxing energy does drive down energy useage. If petrol was £20 a gallon how long till we had 100mpg cars and how much would people reduce their driving?
Nuclear is the most expensive energy produced.
Otherwise good rant.
Nope, wind energy is. Especially when there is no wind.Nuclear is the most expensive energy produced.
I saw the headline points on the beeb site. It all sounds dreadfully bland and half baked.
You cannot expect politicians to be able to do any joined up thinking.
I agree wholeheartedly.
TJ, can you backup that nuclear claim? I suspect, solar, wind and wave probably come quite a bit higher.
Yes Smee! I must try and remember that the lunatics run the asylum. 😀
You cannot expect politicians to be able to do any joined up thinking
Yes you can - when they tackle a particularly hard dot-to-dot...
Nuclear - it depends on how you do the sums. Lies damn lies and statistics but if you add in the cost of decommissioning ( which no one actually knows what it is) and use historical data for the % of time the leccy is produced than it is very expensive.
Of course according to the pro nuclear folk the next generation of nukes will be cheaper. But I don't believe them.
All the figures are massaged on this. There are no real comparisons that I can find
That oh-so-nasty 5 litre Mercedes will probably be around in 30 years time, thus no energy will have gone into disposing of it and making a new one. Your planet-saving 1.9 diesel will have been through the crusher and out the other end by then. Not that polar-bear friendly now, is it? Also, are we including carcenogenic particulates in this rant? Deep breath now, kiddies...Oh, on second thoughts, don't...
I'm off out for a pointless, petrol-burning, ice-cap melting, polar-bear murdering spin in the 3.2 litre twin-turbo V8 Maserati to which I hold the keys. Powwahhhh!!!!!!111oneoneone...
Historical data from 1950s technology nuclear, or from Sizewell B? Given you feel the need to mention it, I presume the former (as with the latter you can basically ignore this). That and that you always like to come out with figures for 1950s technology to try and support your point, TJ.historical data for the % of time the leccy is produced
Quite!All the figures are massaged on this.
TAXING ENERGY USE DOESN'T MAKE IT GREENER
is it truer in capitals ?
Nope, wind energy is. Especially when there is no wind.
IMO it doesn't matter, humans are too short termist for nuclear, where the waste takes a billion years to become safe, whereas with wind power the major danger is collision or having a rusty turbine fall on you...
humans are too short termist for nuclear, where the waste takes a billion years to become safe
If the half-life is billions of years, it's as safe as it gets - almost zero radiation by definition.
Does no-one do science at school any more? The anti-nuclear hysteria is just mental.
I thought this sums things up quite well.
[url] http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090715/FREE/907159992/1007 [/url]
Nuclear is the most expensive energy produced.
Why then is French electricity so cheap?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article4888149.ece
Dont hold your breath for politics to save the planet. They are only motivated by getting elected to the gravey train. We need a green dictator to sort it out, someone with a scientific background that dosent expect to get elected or liked.
The situation will get worse and worse, enjoy it now while it lasts. There is no way that energy consumption will get less, there is no economic model in use that works with less energy. There is no developing nation that will develop and use less energy.
Meanwhile the population continues to outstrip the resources available to support it. Things like water shortages, food shortages etc will soon make global warming targets look like simple problems.
We are well and truly F***ed.
Yup.
Maybe if people could realise that it hasn't always been like this, we haven't always been this well off, they would take more responsibility.
I still have hope we will sort it out Trimix. But only on a good day.
Yeah, you go waste a load of kWH Jimbo
Dont hold your breath for politics to save the planet. They are only motivated by getting elected to the gravey train.
EDF will be taking on a few ex MP/ministers on a Consultancy basis from the 2000-2010 era in the new few years..
Hope is not going to change anything.
The vast majority of the planet dont even know what global warming is. Think of all the people in India and China who are looking forward to getting electricity, nevermind a new car. Do you think any political leader is going to tell them they cant have any just because we in the west are bothered about meeting green targets ?
Do you expect any government trying to kickstart the economy before the next election is going to tell business leaders they have to pay more tax and use less energy is going to be taken seriously.
The best they will do is invent carbon trading - which does not reduce useage, it just allows polluters to continue by paying for it and traders to get rich selling it.
Show me a moment in history where the governments have got together for the benefit of the planet ?
Why then is French electricity so cheap?
Maybe something to do with the massive subsidies nuclear industries have received over the years?
As long as the western world (and parts of the "developing world") continue to measure success by economic "growth", there will NEVER an end to mass energy usage/consumption. As mentioned above, we're (in the main) just too short term/selfish to consider the effect of our actions. "Hey, we're only here once"........
Global warming should really be divorced from this discussion. The problem is energy security not global warming. AGW is used as a get out by those who reject it.
There is a finite amount of fuel, a massively increasing demand on the resources that exist, note the fuel price spike last year. What happens once the recession has run its course and demand starts to climb again.
Go forward 5-10 years and power stations in the UK need to shut down as they reach the end of there lives, gas prices carry on rising.
etc etc
We are shafted if we don't get this sorted 10 years ago....
Does no-one do science at school any more? The anti-nuclear hysteria is just mental.
science bit: Fe (Iron) 54 half life > 3.1×10+22 years
compared to which 10^9 years is decidedly unstable 🙁
and also if it's safe in one billion years the half life must be considerably shorter...
I can't understand why we aren't plowing more into renewables full stop, yes I know it's more expensive but we will end up with way better fuel security, the next big war is most likly to come down to either energy or water distribution. Maybe a lot of micro generators is partly the way forward. In Germany they have stimulated the market by imposing high values on the price energy companies pay you for power bcak to the grid. this makes it much more cost sensible for the consumer and has had the additional effect of shifting lots of wind turbines / solar panels etc. which in turn has brough the price of these items down making it even more cost effective to install them.
Oh and like to see a terrorist group try and bring down 2 million domestic wind turbines at the same time. Mind you it all adds up to the same problem, investment now, benefits (and votes) in the future.
We're all addicted to crack, and the addiction is spreading like crazy.
A few people are kicking the habit. A lot more are focussed on 'clean' crack, and crack substitutes.
Maybe if we'd just stuck with our nice cup of tea, made from current solar income, we'd not have got used to being so greedy.
Did you know that our current energy use is the equivalent of 22 billion slaves working 24/7?
science bit: Fe (Iron) 54 half life > 3.1×10+22 years
More science bit: Half life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years. SimonFBarnes is made up from large quantities of this highly radioactive material, step away from him immediately!
I reckon this decade and the couple earlier are going to be the best to enjoy life in as seen from the future.
Cheap and easy worldwide travel, easy access to water/food/energy, high standard of cheap/free medical care. Good standard of life expectancy and work. Still some parts of the world unspoiled by pollution and population.
Soon the pressures of population and energy crisis problems will result in more expensive travel, tightening of restrictions in movement as the global refugee problem gets worse. If you live on the borders of the EU there is already a massive imigration problem. The change in economic forces will soon leave much of the lower class in the developed world in deep trouble as the unskilled jobs dry up and move even more to the third world. Contrys like the US will get more and more nationalistic as they try to isolate the effects of these economic pressures. The EU will follow and close its borders, raise import taxes and try to shut out the third world competition. China will call in its loans to the US and hoover up the natural rescourses in Africa.
Look out for more wars for water/land/food/energy. When the competition gets tough governments get more shortsighted.
That's not what he said at all, certainly yesterday:
"Where I disagree with other people on aviation is if you did 80% cuts across the board, as some people have called for on aviation, you would go back to 1974 levels of flying," he said. "I don't want to have a situation where only rich people can afford to fly."
>Maybe if people could realise that it hasn't always been like this
Exactly !
>a whole chunk of the economy will disappear if we go back to 1970's levels of air travel!
And a whole new area of the economy opens up, *and* keeps UK money within the UK...where do think people travelling abroad are spending it* ?
I can remember the seaside holiday towns of the 60's/70's and they were heaving, especially during summer factory closedowns. Many are in a very sad state now, as a result of cheap air travel. And you can't argue that roasting on a Costa-del-Sol beach (etc) with N thousand other brits is adding much to anyone's 'cultural experience.
*Equally the converse is true wrt to reducing visitor numbers to the UK, but the last time I went to Margate there didn't appear to be many europeans holidaying there....
>We are well and truly F***ed
+1 I'm sorry to say..
SimonFBarnes is made up from large quantities of this highly radioactive material, step away from him immediately!
"proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant: ca. 1 part per trillion"
mrmo - MemberGlobal warming should really be divorced from this discussion. The problem is energy security not global warming. AGW is used as a get out by those who reject it.
Yes, global warming is occuring and I don' think we humans are contributing that significantly (15%). The world was warmer before, sea levels were 6-7m higher than they are now and once the UK was covered by a thick sheet of ice. No fossil fuels were burned during this time, but we shouldn't use this as an excuse to pointlessly waste energy.
Mrmo, you are correct, the situation is all about security. This applies to food, energy and water.
There are too many people in the world and the numbers are growing.
This is the bigger problem.
When we run out of fossil fuels there will be serious strife. We need to cut down and cut out waste, but as one guy commented, "enjoy it while it lasts" I agree because we won't be able to stop this relentless march into chaos.
So hang on... if I've read this thread correctly, we are all doomed. Is that right?
doomed, most definitely doomed - although it's fun to watch the self important human race attempting to lower global temperatures in a few years.
There was great quote from Sean Lock on the tele the other night about global waming "it's like turning up to an earthquake with a dust pan and brush"
>Yes, global warming is occuring and I don' think we humans are contributing that significantly (15%)
As an engineer, 'fraid I'll go with the scientific consensus on the best analysis we can currently make, rather than unsubstantiated opinion.
>The world was warmer before
Without any context (specifically, time) that's pretty meaningless. Its the rate of change which is the issue.
>"enjoy it while it lasts"
Oh FFS.
How much *more* painful do you think it's gonna be 10, 20, 100 yrs down the road ? Assuming we're still here, of course.
Basically you're saying screw our descendants and a significant proportion of the flora and fauna we share the world with, yeah ?
>There are too many people in the world and the numbers are growing.
Yeah, but it's the minority of the planet that have been the greedy buggers over the last century and pissed energy reserves, mineral resources, etc up the wall because they've been 'cheap'.
Nothing to do with most of the developing world, and we're expecting them to make much of the cuts via carbon trading and energy efficiency we can't be bothered to do.
[i]TAXING ENERGY USE ...DOESN'T REDUCE EMISSIONS, IT JUST MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE USER...[/i]
This is true, assuming that the supply of money available to the consumers of energy is limitless. This assumption makes the model sufficiently unrealistic that the conclusion drawn from it is not tenable. 🙂
I was described at work the other day as an "Eco warrior" and then asked if it was for financial reasons. I said both - driving my car less and biking more saves me money and reduces the drain on limited resources. Saving electricity/gas at home does the same.
Unfortunately the majority of people at work don't see it this way and whilst moaning about the cost of petrol, gas and electric they don't want to change their lifestyle and if the Western World doesn't want to change it's high use of limited resources how can we tell the emerging World not to do the same as us.
IMO our current Western lifestyle is unsustainable and we should be looking at the basics of life - water, energy, food and shelter - and be as self sufficient as a country (or continent?) in them as we can .
and also if it's safe in one billion years the half life must be considerably shorter...
Yeah, maybe only 50 million years 🙄
There you go Trimix, there is hope, at least some people on singletrack get it 🙂
I'm resigned.
ive given up on eco.
i do my bit to recycle, and i dont waste energy, (i dont fly unless i have to for example) but im not going to be restricted by it.
at the end of the day, we ARE NOT DESTROYING THE EARTH
we are only destroying what we need for ourselves.
ecoterrorism is a purely selfish act, to conserve a parasitic species as long as possible!
when (not if) the human species is extinct, through swineflu, or nuclear war or zombie apocalypse or whatever, who will care?
NO ONE. no animals will care, species become extinct EVERY DAY, new species evolve to replace them.
the earth will remain, the same amount of basic compounds will exist on the planet as did when humans first evolved, carbon isnt going anywhere, we are just moving it to a plane that doesnt agree with us, as humans.
all the carbon in the atmosphere, will make its way back to being fossil fuels eventually.
mother earth doesnt give two hoots, mother earth is a spinning lump of rock and iron and nickle with a hardly noticable skin of life on it.
personally i want to see the end of the human race within my lifetime, and i want it to be a spectacular yet ultimatly hopeless showdown. (praps im getting carried away here)
[b]bring on the zombies!!![/b]
The problem with Nuclear is the STILL unanswered problem of waste disposal.
A repository for high level nuclear waste basically has to be stable for geological periods of time. In practice, this is very difficult to prove/find/build as the NIREX debarcle showed.
Waste dispoal is not actually factored into the cost models for nuclear when the numbers are being prepped for comparision with other energy sources, so as TJ says, its virtually impossible to compare.
Legislating energy efficiency would have a sudden and dramatic improvement (something like 20-25% in 10 years as people replace their appliances) on our energy usage without the poor old general populace having to moderate their behaviours.
Errrr.....after you Olly 😯
Well said science officer.
I will accept nukes when someone can tell me how to deal safely with the waste. this is basically the position of the scottish government
If nuclear is as wonderful as it's made out to be, then the obvious place for nuclear plants is in the centre of major cities, perhaps underground. That would cut down transmission losses, and we could be sure that safety would be treated as important.
Living in Scotland, I am delighted at the prospect of global warming. It will cut down our fuel bills (environmentally friendly that!) and restore our climate to what it was about 1,200 years ago. 🙂
They need far too much water for cooling and to dilute the radiation losses to be sited near major conurbations.
Well if you like Nuclear that's great, and assuming you have no accidents then fine.
But what do we do after we've run out of uranium?
safe disposal of nuclear waste is easy, just bury it inside a granite mountain.
Even the truly horrible stuff will be safe-ish in a few hundred thousand years, and there are mountains in the uk which haven't moved for about 400 million years, and show no signs of going anywhere soon.
the hard parts are dismantling the power station, and then convincing people who live within a few hundred km of the containment mountain that it's a good idea.
In the long run, it's either nuclear fusion (which doesn't work yet), or we go back to an economy based on goats and parsnips.
the next 50 years will be VERY interesting, whichever way it goes, goat soup anyone?...
quote]They need far too much water for cooling and to dilute the radiation losses to be sited near major conurbations.
true we have no major conurbations in this country near rivers or the sea do we 😯
In the long run, it's either nuclear fusion (which doesn't work yet), or we go back to an economy based on goats and parsnips
Yes of course no middle ground between those options 🙄
Clearly we have no other alternatives if only we had tides or say a sun or hydro electirc or etc
ahwiles - Membersafe disposal of nuclear waste is easy, just bury it inside a granite mountain.
If its so easy why has no one actually found an acceptable method yet?
we have found a safe disposal method - bury it inside a granite mountain.
The problem is convincing the local population that it's a good idea.
Ahwiles - simply not true. It is not safe to do this. many objections. Firstly some waste is so hot that it needs to be cooled, secondly there are geological faults where the waste could seep thru. It simple is not safe enough to do this and no one worldwide has found an acceptable solution.
don't bring me problems, - bring me solutions!
ok, bury it inside a COLD mountain, and seal up the cracks with a bit of silicon bath sealant.
there, the problem of disposal is now solved. once and for all...
(anyway, did you read all of my first comment? - i don't think Nuclear fission is a long-term solution, i'm with YOU in this discussion, and you're trying to argue with me, are you having a bad day?)
X.
Open question - Assuming nuclear waste can't be safely stored....
What do YOU need electricity for so much that justifies creating nuclear waste?
Porn 🙂
It's easy! Firstly, why put dangerous toxic waste in our own back yard when we can export danger, catastrophe and poverty to other countries!? We've been great at this for centuries. Build a load of parabolic sun reflection power stations in the oh so sunny middle east and deserts of the world and then fund a huge super grid to cloudy old England. Employ the locals to polish said mirrors for a pittance and work in atrocious conditions with no water/holidays/human rights whilst we get a load of delicious electricity to enable us to continue our luxurious internet based lifestyles.
In short, yup, we're all doomed.
You've all made me so energy concious I just switched off the second monitor on my PC
🙂
Seeing as no body picked up on my point earlier I'll make it again. We should be changing our power sources for better reasons than global warming which we, as a planet, have zero chance of getting our act together and preventing (even if we have caused it). Fuel security is going to be much more of a pressing issue in a few years and unless we want to get sucked into even more wars we've got to spend money now on renewables.
No one (apart from those underwater) will give two hoots for global warming when the lights go out and the tanks start to roll.
mrmo and I did stumpyjon!
Doomed
It's just a question of exactly when.
Sustainable population of Britain is somewhere between 10 and 20 million. 20 years of oil left (at the outside)and at the present time we use 9 calories of energy (oil) to produce 1 calorie of food.
When the oil runs out so does the food. Gone are the days of knowing how to use both manpower and horse(as in the 4 legged variety)power to produce food.
It's going to be pretty grim as it won't happen suddenly. As awareness of our impending plight grows society will breakdown. We're up S**t Creek with no chance of ever getting a paddle.
I think humans are the last species that needs to worry about being doomed.