Reduce your carbon footprint - let the train take the strain

[TheQ]

45 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

It's just as sobering standing next to a gas transmission pressure regulator station on a cold winter's day listening to the high pitched very loud scream of the Natural gas passing through a 36" dia pipe at around 1000 PSI. Keeping our houses warm and dinners cooked (and lights on also !!).

 

 

 

Brit15

 

 

You should try standing next to the Gas Turbines At Bacton pressurising it up to 1000psi in the first place..

[Gibbo675]

6 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

It's just as sobering standing next to a gas transmission pressure regulator station on a cold winter's day listening to the high pitched very loud scream of the Natural gas passing through a 36" dia pipe at around 1000 PSI. Keeping our houses warm and dinners cooked (and lights on also !!).

 

Face it folks, fossil fuels ain't going away soon.

 

And what about the big German car manufacturers boasting of huge increases in electric car production over the next couple of years - very green till you note that the Germans have shut their nuclear plants (after Fukushima) and now burn increasing amounts of dirty Lignite to produce electricity.

 

Wonder if Greta knows ?? Short trip down from Sweden down to the Fatherland to do some campaigning !!.

 

Brit15

 

 

Hi Brit15,

 

Leave poor Greta Thunberg out of it !

 

She is a semi autistic-victim of child abuse at the hands of her self publicist parents.

 

I bet Mark Windows knows all the same, do listen,

 

 

 

Gibbo.

[Mike Storey]

On 08/07/2019 at 13:42, APOLLO said:

 

 

Face it folks, fossil fuels ain't going away soon.

 

And what about the big German car manufacturers boasting of huge increases in electric car production over the next couple of years - very green till you note that the Germans have shut their nuclear plants (after Fukushima) and now burn increasing amounts of dirty Lignite to produce electricity.

 

 

Not entirely true:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-emissions-uba/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-by-42-percent-in-2018-idUSKCN1RE1EQ

 

Whilst it may be true that last year was mild, so energy requirements dropped anyway, the previous four years had seen stability in CO2 emissions by generators in Germany, not growth, whilst they transition to renewables and away from carbon.  But as a percentage of the total, coal/lignite and oil were being used less because of cost.

 

 

 

 

[caradoc]

Interesting article on the BBC News website today, stating that 'More than a third of Germany's electricity is still produced by burning coal - mostly dirty brown lignite':

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-48931062

 

The environmental impact is huge, not only 90% of a forest but entire villages have been destroyed by open-cast lignite mining, (quite apart from the pollution produced by burning the stuff). 

Still, no doubt the EU is taking appropriate action against Germany, and Greta Thunberg and Emma Thompson are en route as we speak.......

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

From the article caradoc posted above

 

Brown coal

 

Germany is the biggest source of lignite in the world, followed by China and Turkey - in 2016, the EU was responsible for 37.5% of global production

 

The Belchatow mine in Poland, at 12km long and 200m deep, is the world's biggest

 

Germany's Niederaussem plant, supplied by the Hambacher mine, ranks second in Europe for emissions of mercury

 

Burning coal damages health by producing particulates, ground-level ozone and nitrogen dioxide

 

Brown coal is worse than ordinary coal - for health and the climate - because more must be burned to produce the same amount of energy

 

Contamination from Germany and Poland stretches across Europe, including to the UK, depending on the wind direction

 

Squeaky clean Germany - I think NOT.

 

Brit15

 

 

[Torper]

But the BBC article also says that the mining gives "access to the riches that lie beneath - millions of tons of coal, coal that keeps industry running in this part of Germany and provides thousands of people with a living".  The prorestors will no doubt continue to protest, but what substitute do they suggest to keep the industry running and all those people in work?

 

DT

[Mike Storey]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Squeaky clean Germany - I think NOT.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

I cannot see anywhere that anyone has said that.

 

But the article fails to mention that the share of coal, both types, in energy production in Germany dropped, from near 40% to just over 35%, in the last few years.

 

It also failed to mention that renewables contribution rose from less than 2% in 2000, to 40% in 2018 (although that includes some controversial biomass plants).

 

But the hiccup in their grand plan was the decision to shut down all nuclear plants by 2022 (demanded by a majority of voters), and that has screwed their original plans to have the initial Paris agreement levels by 2020. They have now decided that they can eliminate all coal plants by 2038 (or 2035 if possible), but that will cost them c.40 billion euros in compensation to coal producers, for closing mines not yet fully exploited,plus the cost of rapidly expanding natural gas and renewable energy harvesting.

 

There are protestors against the coal mines, but also protestors against further windfarms, and supporters of coal mines and renewables. Tricky stuff, but it has been somewhat botched - no argument there.

 

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I cannot see anywhere that anyone has said that.

 

But the article fails to mention that the share of coal, both types, in energy production in Germany dropped, from near 40% to just over 35%, in the last few years.

 

It also failed to mention that renewables contribution rose from less than 2% in 2000, to 40% in 2018 (although that includes some controversial biomass plants).

 

But the hiccup in their grand plan was the decision to shut down all nuclear plants by 2022 (demanded by a majority of voters), and that has screwed their original plans to have the initial Paris agreement levels by 2020. They have now decided that they can eliminate all coal plants by 2038 (or 2035 if possible), but that will cost them c.40 billion euros in compensation to coal producers, for closing mines not yet fully exploited,plus the cost of rapidly expanding natural gas and renewable energy harvesting.

 

There are protestors against the coal mines, but also protestors against further windfarms, and supporters of coal mines and renewables. Tricky stuff, but it has been somewhat botched - no argument there.

 

Whereas here in the UK, coal's share of energy production has dropped from 30% in 2014 to 5.4% in 2018... Still not wonderful as we've still got ~40% gas, but it's a pretty good start.

 

As I type this the UK grid input is 36% renewable, 15% nuclear, 37% gas, 1% coal. The renewables break down as 6% biomass, 12% wind, 17% solar (but then it is quite sunny outside...) and 1% hydro. There's also 6% from France, 3% from the Netherlands, 3% from Belgium and -1% to Ireland.

[jjb1970]

The German kneejerk reaction to shut down their nuclear sector was a spectacularly silly move (although in fairness it cheers me up to know other governments can be as inept as ours). Despite a lot of rhetoric their emissions performance is not especially impressive and for years they've fought efforts to impose much stricter emissions goals in the automotive sector because the high performance and luxury segments are so important to the German automotive industry. However, they are moving in the right direction. 

 

This may not be the usual thing people say, and it amazes me to say it, but spending a lot of time in various regulatory for a on the matter of emissions the UK position is one of the most ambitious and the role being played by the UK is actually rather impressive. We're well ahead of the EU co-ordinated positions in a number of areas and are one of the countries pushing for greater ambition. Given the complete shambles of our government in recent times it's quite refreshing to be able to comment in a positive way.

[jjb1970]

10 hours ago, Torper said:

But the BBC article also says that the mining gives "access to the riches that lie beneath - millions of tons of coal, coal that keeps industry running in this part of Germany and provides thousands of people with a living".  The prorestors will no doubt continue to protest, but what substitute do they suggest to keep the industry running and all those people in work?

 

DT

 

Re-orientating a local economy will clearly be very painful, but I really can't see it being a defensible position to continue burning coal simply to preserve mining jobs. 

[PatB]

4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Re-orientating a local economy will clearly be very painful, but I really can't see it being a defensible position to continue burning coal simply to preserve mining jobs. 

 

Well, such seems to be the position of Australian State and Federal governments at the moment. Mind you, there's a certain reluctance here to move on from 1955 or so in all sorts of areas of life.

[62613]

4 hours ago, PatB said:

 

Well, such seems to be the position of Australian State and Federal governments at the moment. Mind you, there's a certain reluctance here to move on from 1955 or so in all sorts of areas of life.

Wasn't that also one of President Trump's selling points in 2016?

[Torper]

14 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Re-orientating a local economy will clearly be very painful, but I really can't see it being a defensible position to continue burning coal simply to preserve mining jobs. 

 

 That is such an uncaring comment.  Thousands of jobs down the drain?  Painful?  Besides which, they're not burning coal simply to preserve mining jobs.  They're burning it to fuel the industry on which so many other jobs also depend.

 

DT

[jjb1970]

Just now, Torper said:

 

 That is such an uncaring comment.  Thousands of jobs down the drain?  Painful?  Besides which, they're not burning coal simply to preserve mining jobs.  They're burning it to fuel the industry on which so many other jobs also depend.

 

DT

 

Should we support cigarette factories or opiate farming in the interests of those who find employment in those areas? There are multiple alternatives to coal and even by the standards of fossil fuel coal is a particularly high emissions fuel. 

[Torper]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Should we support cigarette factories or opiate farming in the interests of those who find employment in those areas? There are multiple alternatives to coal and even by the standards of fossil fuel coal is a particularly high emissions fuel. 

 

OK, then first set up one or more of the multiple alternatives (which are?) that will keep the industries going and the people employed, then think about shutting the mines and the coal fired power stations.  It is easy for us to sit here and say yes, it's in a good cause, lets put all these miners and other people out of work knowing that it will have no adverse effect on us while in fact it will lead to destitute families, breakdown of communities, and widespread misery.  And in the great scheme of things the effect on global warmimg will be minimal.

 

DT

[APOLLO]

17 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

for years they've fought efforts to impose much stricter emissions goals in the automotive sector because the high performance and luxury segments are so important to the German automotive industry. However, they are moving in the right direction. 

 

Except for VW / Audi with their cheat devices. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (cough cough).

As to loss of German jobs if / when mining ceases - TOUGH - did the Germans care when thousands of British coal miners lost their livelihoods from Thatcher to last year - (Now no UK pits left) - NO I think not.

 

We Brits need to get off our ar5es and build tidal barrages (Bristol Channel, Morecambe Bay for a start), more wind, solar & nuclear plants for the base load. I don't write off new build coal (with carbon capture /storage) and re opening our coalfields either - depends on how hard the coming civil war will be when millions freeze during winter (with holes in their feet !!) - Time will tell on this one.

 

I also don't get the demonisation of gas for home heating, no gas CH boilers in new build property after 2025 - what will replace that ? (electricity is VERY costly for home heating, ground heat expensive to install and a bit iffy on performance so I read.

 

https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/are-gas-boilers-being-banned/

 

Just back from sunny (well cloudy) Thailand, rampant building there of both roads and railways, and not just in Bangkok. This really surprised me, a brand new twin viaduct 6 lane motorway, nearly finished,  built over a 4 lane dual carriageway by pass road that itself was built only around 15 years ago. The viaduct goes on for miles and miles (as the Who sung !!). This is at Saraburi 60 miles north of Bangkok. No sign of this work 3 years ago !!

 

 

This is Don Muang (old Airport) at Bangkok. 8 lane highway to the left with a 6 lane overhead motorway, Train on the old metre gauge line to the north. Above is the new 4 track line being built to the north and local line also. both standard gauge & electrified.  The old concrete piers centre are from an abandoned never completed O/H railway project many from years ago.

 

 

Do the Thais (and most other countries)  care about Carbon Footprints etc - seemingly not.

 

Brit15

 

 

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, Torper said:

 

 That is such an uncaring comment.  Thousands of jobs down the drain?  Painful?  Besides which, they're not burning coal simply to preserve mining jobs.  They're burning it to fuel the industry on which so many other jobs also depend.

 

DT

 

Although it was undoubtedly very painful, the UK has managed to wean itself off coal-generated electricity.

 

[Torper]

44 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Although it was undoubtedly very painful, the UK has managed to wean itself off coal-generated electricity.

 

 

And now we're a net importer of energy.  56% of the gas we use comes from abroad.  The future of nuclear, which produces about 21% of our electricity, is in doubt.   At least coal was, and still could be, produced here in the UK where we have substantial reserves.  It seems absurd that in spite of that, we import most of the coal still used, largely from Russia, Columbia and the USA.

 

DT

[caradoc]

Maybe it's all a cunning plan; When everyone else's coal (and gas) runs out, we will still have our coal reserves !

[jjb1970]

4 hours ago, Torper said:

 

OK, then first set up one or more of the multiple alternatives (which are?) that will keep the industries going and the people employed, then think about shutting the mines and the coal fired power stations.  It is easy for us to sit here and say yes, it's in a good cause, lets put all these miners and other people out of work knowing that it will have no adverse effect on us while in fact it will lead to destitute families, breakdown of communities, and widespread misery.  And in the great scheme of things the effect on global warmimg will be minimal.

 

DT

 

It's already happening, and coal is no longer the essential component of our generation mix it once was. That transition is only going to go in one direction and we will almost certainly see the final coal plants taken out of service sooner rather than later. There is now a large renewables and low carbon sector providing a lot of employment, are those jobs less worthy than mining jobs? Industry is in constant flux and evolution and society has to evolve along with it. Certainly, it would be selfish in the extreme to value mining jobs over emissions reduction when a number of countries face an existential threat from climate change, multiple species face potential extinction and the adverse effects for society make closing a coal mine trivial by comparison. Certainly it's easier for a community to re-adjust to a mine closer than for a country to find a new home when it disappears below water. We made this mess, we grew rich on the back or emissions and now we have a heightened responsibility to do something about it.

[rue_d_etropal]

please could we get back to discussing how using trains could reduce our carbon footprint. Getting distracted by the other issues involved is one of the tchniques used by some to slow down discussion on sorting out environmetal problems we are facing.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, rue_d_etropal said:

please could we get back to discussing how using trains could reduce our carbon footprint. Getting distracted by the other issues involved is one of the tchniques used by some to slow down discussion on sorting out environmetal problems we are facing.

 

It's just how conversations normally go, be worried about drift when it happens in meetings with people actually in a position to do something, but not what's really just general chatting.

 

Personally what slows down sorting out the issues is finding most of the solutions very, very unappealing, so people trying to tell me they're all great just raises my blood pressure. Some I may be able to stomach as (relatively) short-term necessary evils but they're rarely put forward as that. Mind you as I probably said earlier I'm increasingly finding the same about a great deal of unrelated "progress", it's all trying to build a world that I hope doesn't happen until after I've died (which'll be hard since it's already quite far down that path).

[APOLLO]

21 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

It's already happening, and coal is no longer the essential component of our generation mix it once was. That transition is only going to go in one direction and we will almost certainly see the final coal plants taken out of service sooner rather than later. There is now a large renewables and low carbon sector providing a lot of employment, are those jobs less worthy than mining jobs? Industry is in constant flux and evolution and society has to evolve along with it. Certainly, it would be selfish in the extreme to value mining jobs over emissions reduction when a number of countries face an existential threat from climate change, multiple species face potential extinction and the adverse effects for society make closing a coal mine trivial by comparison. Certainly it's easier for a community to re-adjust to a mine closer than for a country to find a new home when it disappears below water. We made this mess, we grew rich on the back or emissions and now we have a heightened responsibility to do something about it.

 

Disappear under water ? - sounds like poor old Fairbourne in Wales, flooding soon after 2050 - 70 London, Somerset, Southport etc.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/the-fight-for-fairbourne-uks-first-climate-change-refugees-battle-to-save-coastal-village-11746391

 

WE made this mess / - NO - THE WORLD has made this mess, and continues to do so ever increasingly & uncaringly. (yes we started it - well Watt, Stephenson etc kicked it all off).

 

India, China, burning Australian coal, making cheap steel with that coal and again Australian iron ore - in vast quantities. USA also, still a big coal user and bu**ering up their country with frack oil & gas. Never mind "The squeaky clean lignite burning & Europe polluting Germans" !!!!!!!

 

I'm also getting mighty sick of the call "The west has had its share of industrialisation (and emissions) - NOW it's our turn chanted increasingly by over 2 billion Indians / Chinese etc. 

 

Yes we in the west with  our technology & research capabilities, do have a heightened responsibility to do something about it. That DOES NOT mean shooting ourselves in both feet while billions of others continue with rampant uncaring expansion & emissions, like Thailand above.

 

Big problems, no easy solutions (political hot potato in many countries). Buy a house halfway up a mountain.

 

As to letting the train take the strain - here in the UK  things like Northern Rail extending the peak time periods (yes now a morning & an evening peak - both stretched recently) do little to help. 

 

By the way the new overhead railway in Bangkok to Don Muang is due to open late next year - I reckon this line will be an instant success. No peak time ticketing over there. Won't replace too many cars though, the Thai's are car crazy. (as is the local wildlife)

 

 

Brit15

[jjb1970]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Disappear under water ? - sounds like poor old Fairbourne in Wales, flooding soon after 2050 - 70 London, Somerset, Southport etc.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/the-fight-for-fairbourne-uks-first-climate-change-refugees-battle-to-save-coastal-village-11746391

 

WE made this mess / - NO - THE WORLD has made this mess, and continues to do so ever increasingly & uncaringly. (yes we started it - well Watt, Stephenson etc kicked it all off).

 

India, China, burning Australian coal, making cheap steel with that coal and again Australian iron ore - in vast quantities. USA also, still a big coal user and bu**ering up their country with frack oil & gas. Never mind "The squeaky clean lignite burning & Europe polluting Germans" !!!!!!!

 

I'm also getting mighty sick of the call "The west has had its share of industrialisation (and emissions) - NOW it's our turn chanted increasingly by over 2 billion Indians / Chinese etc. 

 

Yes we in the west with  our technology & research capabilities, do have a heightened responsibility to do something about it. That DOES NOT mean shooting ourselves in both feet while billions of others continue with rampant uncaring expansion & emissions, like Thailand above.

 

 

 

As I think I said earlier, GHG emissions are a cumulative problem, in fact the potency of GHGs is as much a function of their dwell time as it is their global warming potential. Which means the problem we have today is not the result of the gases emitted today or even over the last decade but the result of a steady accumulation of GHGs largely since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The developed world started emitting before the developed world and emitted vast quantities of carbon largely because of being coal and oil based economies. Added to which people in the developed world have consumed over resources at a massively greater rate than those in poor countries. Therefore the developed world cannot escape its responsibility for this mess and certainly we have no right at all to tell people in emerging economies that they can't aspire to the sort of lifestyle people in the developed world take for granted.

With respect to doing something about it the following link is interesting:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/799098/global-clean-energy-investment-by-country/

 

I remember reading some interesting articles a few years ago when the emerging economies were outspending the developed economies in clean energy. One of the standard arguments against us doing anything is to point at China, ignoring the inconvenient reality that China is actually pumping money into clean technology at a prodigious rate.  

[APOLLO]

Quote

China is actually pumping money into clean technology at a prodigious rate.  

 

But will it be enough ? I think China's increasing emissions currently far outweigh their well intended increases in clean technology, however prodigious it us.

 

 

Scale of the problem in China. And this will grow year on year.

 

 

What the West (US LOT) pumped up into the atmosphere up to say 1960 was small compared to recent years, how much of this CO2 output from say 1960 onwards is attributable to "the west" and how much to "The developing world" ? - I don't know, but I'd call it even stevens up to now.

 

 

I've not been to China (well been to Hong Kong) , but recently back from a very rapidly developing (and increasingly CO2 emitting) Thailand. They really don't care about emissions, lots of new cars, pick ups, big engined ones. Last week I drove across Bangkok in a petrol V8 Land Rover Discovery, the brother in law's "hobby" car. 16 mpg after the traffic jams. Green = NOT. Wifes sister has a Suzuki swift, nice little car, 50 mpg - Most Thais don't want these though - no street cred !!.

 

Not arguing with you Jib (or anyone else). I respect your views & experience. We certainly have (the world that is) huge problems ahead.  My posts are just my views.

 

Coming home changing planes at Dubai, the number of planes landing / departing is staggering - most are Emirates 4 engined A380 Airbus - just who is going to curtail this ?

 

Brit15