Blow, blow thou winter wind

[jambutty]

The Boffins tell us that storms like the most recent one are likely to be even more frequent in the foreseeable future than they are now and probably more ferocious.

The government is continually bleating about reducing the UK’s ‘Carbon Footprint’.

In order to do so we are encouraged by the Government to at least conserve electrical energy. It has been suggested that the way to do so is to refrain from keeping various appliances on ‘stand by’ and to use the new low energy light bulbs. My research suggests that these low energy bulbs cost about 10 times what a normal hot filament bulb costs, but they are supposed to last more than ten times longer. However the downside is that a low energy bulb does not give off quite as much light as a hot filament bulb. Turning the heating thermostat down by just one degree will not only reduce the fuel used but also the cost.

It has become evident that the UK cannot supply all its energy needs. Particularly with gas and that we are now at the mercy of foreign powers to keep our factories (what few are left), our offices and homes heated and lit.

Our electrical energy is supplied from gas and oil fired power stations, nuclear stations and a tiny proportion from Wind Farms. Proposals are in place to build even more Wind Farms off shore. As far as I know we do not have any hydroelectric power stations in the UK. We are sat on a minimum of 400 years supply of coal. Technology is available to burn coal without adding too much carbon to the atmosphere if any at all.

If, and the scientific opinion is when, global warming does raise the sea levels significantly, off shore wind farms will be in deep water. In that event I suspect that most will become inoperable. Storm force winds are not good for wind turbines and days of calm make them just useless chunks of metal. There is also the question of the energy cost in manufacturing one wind turbine and how many hears it would take for that wind turbine to be in energy profit, so to speak. I believe that the figure is 20 years and by then the turbine is nearing the end of its economical life. Wind turbines are a total waste of time, energy and money. I’m not saying that because I wouldn’t want one in the field across from my flat, but because it is a fact. If a wind turbine were much more energy efficient from manufacture to its demise the location of one near where I live wouldn’t bother me one iota. Most, if not all, nuclear power stations have been built close to the shore. Just a few feet rise in sea levels will drown those plants.

The energy industry is geared to supply our needs as they are now and if drastic reductions in demand are made, the income for the energy industry will be less and thus the profits and of course share holders will be crying poverty. So that industry would not be happy if we used less energy. Nor would the government because there would be less money to tax.

One of the effects of the recent storm was that, apart from some structural damage to bricks and mortar property and large lorries being blown over, some power lines were brought down. Some were power lines that supplied electricity to homes and places of work and some that supplied the power to our main line electric trains.

With no power available the trains got stranded and couldn’t move an inch. Nor could the carriages be heated so that the passengers didn’t suffer from the cold. It was reported that passengers were supplied with blankets to try and keep warm until the time that power was restored or they were rescued. The trains were eventually moved to the nearest station when a Diesel engine was brought in to tow them. But that was after a couple of hours of cold waiting.

If nuclear fusion ever becomes a practical reality our electricity problems will be solved but that is either just a pipe dream or a long, long way off. Then again the break through could come about tomorrow. Nah! Unlikely!

Our energy problems could be tackled in three ways.
Hydroelectric schemes.
Expensive to build but long lasting and only dependant on water coming down the river. The rivers in turn are dependant on water seeping down from the hills and underground springs and the hills get their water from the rain that falls. The UK isn’t exactly a dry country and even if global warming takes a hold it is unlikely to affect our rainfall, especially in the north of the country and Scotland. Some land would have to be flooded but you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.

De-electrify the railways.
Thus saving massive amounts of electricity. Replace the electric locomotives with bio fuelled Diesel locomotives. They may not be able to travel at upwards of 100 mph but do we really want to dash around the country at high speed? Is it really necessary to get to your destination in 3 hours rather than 3½ hours? By reducing the demand on power stations some could be closed down, thus reducing our need to import so much gas and oil. There is another plus to de-electrifying the railways and that is that with no live third rail and overhead power lines trespassers and workers would not get electrocuted. Electrification of underground railways would have to remain. Our farmers, many of whom are struggling to make a living, could diversify into growing crops from which the bio fuel is produced instead of leaving fields fallow.

Transfer the bulk of freight to the railways.
With freight depots in cities and major towns. If Eurostar can take large lorries to France or Belgium then a similar type of train can take freight lorries from depot to depot around the country. Just imagine, a lorry leaves a factory in Portsmouth, boards a freight train, disembarks in Glasgow and drives to its final destination. In fact just the trailer could be boarded and the driver and tractor could return to their point of departure possibly to do a local delivery or collect another trailer. At the other end, depot tractors could off load the trailers and dump them on a trailer park to await the arrival of the recipient tractor. The saving in road miles and fuel not forgetting man/woman hours would be enormous. Another plus would be fewer lorries on the motorways, thus making them less congested. If sea freight can be so well organised as it is with containers then surely something similar could be done for inland freight.

My suggestions could be implemented if the will to do so was there. But there are too many Nimbys who would block hydroelectric schemes and too many whingers making opposing noises.

Instead of people spouting, “no it can’t be done” and voicing objects it would be nice if they changed their attitudes and thought, “I wonder HOW it can be done?”

[WillowTheWhisp]

It would reduce power consumption a lot too if shops didn't have their illuminated signs on all night when nobody's looking at them.

[cashman]

Transfer the bulk of freight to the railways.---------------- railways and canals could be a real boon to this end. no doubt though another DR Beeching would appear and decimate the idea.

[***Mr D***]

Agree something will need to be done, but we are a world where the majoraty (SP) think 'when we need to'.

There are many a proposal I have seen on the net.

a good one is Cannabis/Hemp.

Quote.


Figures show that hemp can produce up to 10 tons of biomass per acre, anywhere from England to France to Canada to Australia. Not only can this biomass be turned into paper, but it can also be turned into both engine fuel and power-plant fuel (pun not intended but appreciated). And clean fuel at that. For whilst our reliance upon the burning of fossil fuels has fostered the Greenhouse Effect, the use of hemp biomass for fuel will not cause such insidious environmental problems.
Why not? Well, for starters, hemp cultivated en masse can be turned into methanol or ethanol, by various known processes involving the fermentation of the cellulose found within hemp biomass. Ethanol is actually one of the best kinds of engine fuel since it leaves no polluting products after it has been burned (racing cars use it). Thus cars can run on ethanol derived from hemp biomass. This is no quixotic dream but a genuine possibility which makes good Green sense. Needless to say, such a move away from oil eventually implies no more oil-slicks and no more wars over oil. As a precursor for fuel, cannabis hemp is slick all right, but not in the way oil is. Doubtless OPEC will not view this information in quite the same light. Hemp biomass can also be turned into charcoal for use within power stations (by a kind of alchemical process known as pyrolysis). Whereas the burning of fuels like coal entails prolific toxic gas emission, the chief gas released from the burning of charcoal is carbon dioxide which, in the long run, will be reabsorbed by subsequent hemp crops. In this way, harmful greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide do not increase with time but are kept in balance through field upon field of fresh air-generating hemp.

[Neal]

I like the idea of hydro-electricity, but also I think we should start looking at building our own nuclear power stations.

Thing is, fair enough us starting to reduce our effect on the planet, but what about other countries? In my opinion, making the changes will make no difference to what's happening to the planet, the Earth has always changed and keeps doing so and it's a natural process. I don't believe that what we are doing is effecting the planet, apart from smog covering cities. Look at all the "pollution" that comes from a volcano, and there were millions of them when humans weren't here....

The Earth is dying, so is the sun. It's time to start moving to new planets and learning about space.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Neal

Thing is, fair enough us starting to reduce our effect on the planet, but what about other countries? In my opinion, making the changes will make no difference to what's happening to the planet

Yep that sounds right.

It's time our little Country did nothing at all to reduce its carbon output.
We should publicly state that we are doing an about turn on our climate change policies. We will start to take the matter seriously when the big countries like America and China do.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

It would reduce power consumption a lot too if shops didn't have their illuminated signs on all night when nobody's looking at them.

Agreed WillowTheWhisp.

In reality nuclear power is not on Neal, unless the boffins crack the fusion problem, because of the radio active waste that has to be safely stored somewhere not for just a few decades but for thousands of years. In any case building nuclear plants close to the shoreline is asking for trouble if indeed the sea levels do rise.

We are all dying from the day we were born or created, the only difference is the time scale. Once again those who know about such things reckon that our sun is good for a few more million years so humanity need have no worries about that.

I wouldn’t like to be on a sinking ship with you Neil saying I’ll bail out if you do and if you don’t I won’t either.

Everybody is waiting for someone else to start and in the meantime we all sink together.

Ignoring the global warming issue altogether we are becoming more and more reliant on a foreign power for our energy needs and that cannot be good for the UK. Of course it could be a ploy by government to force us into total integration with Europe.

[SPUGGIE J]

Sorry but I believe it is too late to start worrying now. By the time a concensus is reached and reduction started carbon emitions with our help will have topped 400 parts per million. As we are at around 380 now it wont take much and countries only ever agree without argument to disagree. The Sun is at its 1/2 life stage and will only get hotter as it gets older and will fry this little blue ball to a cinder , but hey we will have already done it or blown ourselves away so no worries.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Neil

Yep that sounds right.

It's time our little Country did nothing at all to reduce its carbon output.
We should publicly state that we are doing an about turn on our climate change policies. We will start to take the matter seriously when the big countries like America and China do.

That's right. I'm currently burning my fridge in the garden and spraying a can of 1980's hair spray in the air just for the heck of it. Everyone should do the same......

[andrewb]

The nuclear waste isn't as much a problem as people think. I can't remember where I read it but im sure I posted it on accringtonweb before, that waste in quantity is so quite small and hence can be easily disposed of in our large world.

This is certainly not the most practical energy means though as it does leave waste everywhere and nuclear power plans are open to attack by terrorists (although they're incredibly tough, tough enough to withstand a plane).

I completely agree with reducing energy output, the only quail I have with energy saving light bulbs are the amount of time it takes to 'warm up' the light is the same, it just emits visible light, we see no difference, the light we don't see is removed which is what saves energy.

[jambutty]

Nuclear waste that can kill a person horribly within a few days or even hours in some cases IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM no matter how much there is and stays lethal for thousands of years. In the meantime more and more is added.

The only sure fire way of getting rid of nuclear waste is to fire it into the sun but that presents its own problems if, as has happened many times in the past, the vehicle doesn’t reach free fall or malfunctions on the way up and falls back to earth.

No nuclear waste means - no problem.