Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Reduce your carbon footprint - let the train take the strain


 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

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.

 

 

A large chunk of the developed world's development was from a time when populations and economies were smaller. Moving into that same development in a much larger country, much bigger problem. And the developed world is also trying to develop alternative approaches so you don't need to tread the same path - no country building a new rail network is going to go through a steam-based one on their way to something more modern for example just because that's how we did it, but they don't need to launch widespread road transport into the biggest gas guzzlers possible either. The developed world needs to take its own share of responsibility, "you lot did something similar in the past" doesn't cut it, particularly when they've already embraced the bits that have lead to potentially catastrophic population explosions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in France, the centre-right government is about to impose additional taxes on air travel, at long last, for all internal flights and departures to other countries. It will only affect most flight ticket costs by a few euros, but the collected tax, estimated at about 300 million euros per year, will be hypothecated to improvements to land-based public transport, especially rail.

 

Unlike the mis-reported continuation of the fuel tax escalator, which generated the Gilets-Jaunes protests (since when petrol prices have dropped significantly due to the barrel price), this tax proposal has met with little comment.

 

Despite its relatively good "green" ambitions, public transport in France, outside the big cities and high speed routes, remains a complete joke compared to the UK. At least the original G-J movement forced an acceleration of extra investment (1.5 billion euros, yet to be seen exactly how and where) into additional rural transport. We might actually get a bus service around here, instead of having to use the car (or very, very expensive taxis) to get anywhere at all. The local railway line was shut in the 1950's, and the nearest has just four trains a day, at very inconvenient times.

 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 12/07/2019 at 23:57, 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. 

 

On 13/07/2019 at 14:16, 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

 

On 13/07/2019 at 16:04, 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

 

We should know better than most what happens if you close the mines without thinking of alternatives first - look at the state of many of the towns in the former mining areas of the NE and South Wales - many still haven't recovered 30-odd years later.

 

I don't know about Germany, but certainly in Poland, the economy of Silesia is currently very reliant on the mines - and they too had areas devastated by closures, so their government is well aware of the need to transition carefully, rather than just closing the mines without thinking through the consequences to the local community - see the "Just Transition" declaration at last year's COP24 conference:

 

Quote

1. Stress that just transition of the workforce  and the creation of decent work and quality jobs are crucial to ensure an effective and inclusive transition to low greenhouse gas emission and climate resilient development, and to enhance the public support for achieving the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement;

2. Emphasise that development measures to make infrastructure climate-resiliant and enhance institutional capacity in this respect have the potential to be a source of decent jobs creation for both women and men while improving resilience, especially in vulnerable countries;

...

4. Recognise the challenges faced by sectors, cities and regions in transitioning from fossil fuels and high emitting industries, and the importance to ensure a decent future for workers impacted by the transition, while working t o ensure sustainable development and community renewal;

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, APOLLO said:

...

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.

....

 

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 ?

 

 

A couple of thoughts: since we have off-shored much of our own filthy manufacturing, much of the emissions growth you see in China and others is a by-product of producing stuff for the west. We can’t just dump the dirty manufacturing on others, then argue how clean (and virtuous) we are. 

 

Those A380s are much more efficient than the larger numbers of smaller aircraft we usually favour. If Heathrow traffic consisted entirely of widebodies, we wouldn’t need a 3rd runway to cope with all the extra planes that are just transporting the same number of passengers...

 

I’m not very persuaded by arguments that Nobby over there isn’t controlling his emissions (just go with the metaphor), so why should I bother? I was brought up to believe two wrongs don’t make a right, and you need to lead by example — otherwise everyone is just engaged in a race into the gutter. 

 

Paul

 

 

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There's been another round of "Extinction Rebellion" protests this morning, in various cities - surely they'd get more sympathy if they actually came up with sensible, feasible ideas rather than "carbon neutral by 2025" - which is clearly impossible - that's only 5.5 years away, and to become carbon neutral, we'd need to upgrade our entire housing stock, public transport network, 95% of the road vehicles, food supply, distribution network, commuting patterns, and the whole consumerist culture.

 

Carbon neutral is a poor choice anyway, as it ignores other forms of pollution. Which is what has led to a lot of the problems we've got, for example the huge number of Diesel cars currently on the road, because they focused on CO2 and ignored particulates and nitrates - and now we're having the same again with those being the "evil" and tyres, brakes and heavy metals (in the batteries) being ignored in the push for EVs. Similarly the push to vilify meat, but ignoring the huge amounts of waste endemic in the food industry - apparently over a third of all the food produced globally goes to waste!

 

The only way to fix it is a huge, global cultural shift, and that's never going to happen when those in power have a vested interest in consumerism and growth continuing apace. All we as indivuduals can do is to try and do our bit and hope that enough other people follow our lead.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The big problem I've got with those trumpeting on about "carbon neutral" is (a) finding the changes necessary for it very, very obnoxious (no way in hell I'd want to live in a modern house instead of my 19th century one, as well as a loathing of various other aspects I probably shouldn't mention because it'll just start arguments) and (b) it's not necessary - reduction, yes (and we can argue about how much), net zero, no, and trying to push for that will just get in the way of more realistically achievable and still useful changes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend towards the view that doing the right thing should not, within reason, be a conditional act.

 

Yes, I know that needs to be tempered with a certain amount of pragmatism. However, to act otherwise leads, as noted upthread, to a race to the bottom in all sorts of areas of life, not just environmental policy. Do we really want to contribute to, and, ultimately live in, that kind of world?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Unfortunately we are now in a position where net zero is pretty much essential unless we make direct air capture viable on a large scale. If society had moved more quickly when the problem was recognised perhaps we could have had a different transition path. The science had reached consensus stage by the mid to late 80's. If people wanted a gentle transition the time to act was then, on a more ambitious scale. 

I am not sure why some seem to want to burn coal and fossil fuels as quite aside from the GHG issue there are some compelling co-benefits to clean energy such as preventing local pollutants and all the associated public health and environmental damage caused by NOx, PM, black carbon and other nasties. If people are worried about energy security then the only long term solution is sustainable energy. People concentrate on threats to established industry without seeing the potential for future economic and employment opportunities of clean energy. And not just the obvious ones but across the whole logistic chain and life cycle. 

There is still potential to abate emissions from combusting fossil fuels but I can't really see it as being sensible to spend ££££££££££s developing emissions technologies and continuing to dig up and refine fossil fuels and transport them when it is possible to just avoid that whole process. And I say that as someone who has been rather well paid in electricity generation and emissions abatement. It seems far more sensible to avoid making a mess than to make one then spend a fortune cleaning it up. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 
 
0
 Advanced issues found
 
 
 
On 14/07/2019 at 22:02, APOLLO said:

 

fossil_fuels_1.png

 

I cannot believe this graph!

There should be a spike somewhere around the 1914-1918 mark and a rather large spike around the 1939-1945 mark.

Smaller wars subsequently, although very extremely polluting, may well get swallowed up in the general background but WW2, in particular, saw an immense increase in consumption of fossil fuels.

Factory output on both sides increased massively, railway transports up hugely, shipping and aviation transports, not to mention all the vehicles involved in actual combat.

 

I'm not denying climate change, far from it but if data is not presented correctly, something is wrong somewhere.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Unfortunately we are now in a position where net zero is pretty much essential unless we make direct air capture viable on a large scale. If society had moved more quickly when the problem was recognised perhaps we could have had a different transition path. The science had reached consensus stage by the mid to late 80's. If people wanted a gentle transition the time to act was then, on a more ambitious scale. 

I am not sure why some seem to want to burn coal and fossil fuels as quite aside from the GHG issue there are some compelling co-benefits to clean energy such as preventing local pollutants and all the associated public health and environmental damage caused by NOx, PM, black carbon and other nasties. If people are worried about energy security then the only long term solution is sustainable energy. People concentrate on threats to established industry without seeing the potential for future economic and employment opportunities of clean energy. And not just the obvious ones but across the whole logistic chain and life cycle. 

There is still potential to abate emissions from combusting fossil fuels but I can't really see it as being sensible to spend ££££££££££s developing emissions technologies and continuing to dig up and refine fossil fuels and transport them when it is possible to just avoid that whole process. And I say that as someone who has been rather well paid in electricity generation and emissions abatement. It seems far more sensible to avoid making a mess than to make one then spend a fortune cleaning it up. 

 

I agree with you, however I simply don't believe that it is physically, economically or socially possible to go to net zero in the timescales that some people are demanding - for example, even if you were able to ban new IC vehicles overnight, it would take 10-15 years to replace the 38 million we already have in the UK - you can't just make more, as there isn't the factory capacity (and making more factories would defeat the point!). You can't just say "don't drive, use public transport", as for many people that's not an option until we sort out the public transport network (although people in cities, especially London, certainly should do, as they already have a reliable public transport network)

 

Similarly if you closed all the coal mines overnight, you'd put tens or hundreds of people out of work - with catastrophic effects on the local communities. You'd also have to instantly cut Europe's electricity consumption by about 40% to account for the sudden loss of generation from the coal and lignite power stations - it will take 10 years or more to build enough sustainable replacements, and that's if we could suddenly get the politicians to agree to investing huge amounts in renewables.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

I agree with you, however I simply don't believe that it is physically, economically or socially possible to go to net zero in the timescales that some people are demanding - for example, even if you were able to ban new IC vehicles overnight, it would take 10-15 years to replace the 38 million we already have in the UK - you can't just make more, as there isn't the factory capacity (and making more factories would defeat the point!). You can't just say "don't drive, use public transport", as for many people that's not an option until we sort out the public transport network (although people in cities, especially London, certainly should do, as they already have a reliable public transport network)

 

Similarly if you closed all the coal mines overnight, you'd put tens or hundreds of people out of work - with catastrophic effects on the local communities. You'd also have to instantly cut Europe's electricity consumption by about 40% to account for the sudden loss of generation from the coal and lignite power stations - it will take 10 years or more to build enough sustainable replacements, and that's if we could suddenly get the politicians to agree to investing huge amounts in renewables.

 

And yet, curiously, when we faced an existential crisis in WW2, we were able very rapidly to alter pretty much all of society to achieve national objectives. The Total War Economy was an extraordinarily massive change that pretty much the entire population accepted and which took place in a remarkably short period of time.

 

So the question, I guess, is whether or not you believe Climate Catastrophe is a similar existential crisis? If not, well, carry on as normal and wait to see what happens. If you do, then the question now is not whether or not we should be jumping, but how high.

 

Paul

 

 

Edited by Fenman
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Fenman said:

 

And yet, curiously, when we faced an existential crisis in WW2, we were able very rapidly to alter pretty much all of society to achieve national objectives. The Total War Economy was an extraordinarily massive change that pretty much the entire population accepted and which took place in a remarkably short period of time.

 

So the question, I guess, is whether or not you believe Climate Catastrophe is a similar existential crisis? If not, well, carry on as normal and wait to see what happens. If you do, then the question now is not whether or not we should be jumping, but how high.

 

With WW2 it was very in your face at the time. And (for better or worse, thankfully the former as it turned out) everyone knew it was only going to be a short term change - and even that had reprecussions that were felt for years afterwards. If you could sell any changes now as something that would last a few years and then we'd be back to normal society would be able to do that, but it's a very different question from dealing with long term changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Oh believe me, I'm jumping. The problem is, it's all very well for people to glue themselves to roads in London, but as soon as you ask them "How?", they quickly clam up. How are we going to create the culture shift that is required to achieve all this? How are we going to either replace our existing transport system, and/or reduce the need for it? How are we going to eliminate our need for fossil fuels? How are we going to insulate our entire housing stock? We need fewer grandiose demands and more concrete ideas.

 

We also need people in charge who will look at what's necessary, rather than what makes their cronies the most profit. EVs are a fine example of this - the focus isn't how can we reduce our emissions (as it should be), it's how can we get everyone to go and buy a new car - but the process of making a new EV produces just as much emissions as creating a new ICV, and the cost of running them isn't zero either (both power production and tyre/brake/road wear). We need to reduce demand, by making it easier for people to not use their car - so better public transport (electric buses for a start), more flexible/remote working and rezoning so people can work closer to where they live.

 

I live within walking distance of my office - I probably earn about half what I could in "the city", but I deliberately chose this in order to reduce my impact, both on the environment and on my health. It means my car use is about half the national average. But not everyone can do that, as things currently stand - so we need to change that. Give tax incentives for companies to create jobs in provincial areas, rural areas and deprived areas. Block moves from those areas into city centres.

 

We had a meeting here in the town about air pollution. It was quite clear that the people organising it had already decided what they wanted the outcome to be, as they pretty much ignored the people who stood up and said "Our bus service can't be relied on to get us to work on time", and those who said "We need to encourage offices to allow people to work from home, to reduce congestion from commuting". I was one of the latter - if half of the commuters could work from home one day a week, that's a 10% reduction in traffic levels (and thus emissions), instantly, with very little financial cost and no cultural cost.

 

30% of all the food produced, globally, is wasted - at a cost of $1tn a year. A huge proportion of that is inadequate storage and transport - very easily solved with, again, no societal cost, and probably financially neutral.

 

Start building lots of renewable power - there's no question on this one, it HAS to be done immediately. Stop the attitudes of "Oh, but I can just see the tip of the windmill blades from 20 miles away so I'm going to get my friends in the council to block it" (see the aborted Bullington Cross wind farm...). Build the factories for these in coal mining areas to provide new, skilled employment for the miners, thus transitioning the economies of those areas away from coal and into renewables. Accompany this with appropriate training etc.

 

End domestic flights - there's no need to fly from London to Edinburgh when there's a perfectly good railway line (to get the thread back on topic!). You may need to allow positioning moves, but that's all.

 

And above all, don't just take suggestions like these (and others) and dismiss them with "it can't be done" - instead suggest how it can, or what can be done instead. Think through the consequences of each outcome, and how they can be overcome (like coal mines - consequence of closing is a local economic crash - solution to that is to provide alternative skilled employment and training)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Build the factories for these in coal mining areas to provide new, skilled employment for the miners, thus transitioning the economies of those areas away from coal and into renewables. Accompany this with appropriate training etc.

 

Like what did not happen in Lancashire, Yorkshire, North Notts, North East, Scotland, Wales etc. Many mining communities in these areas are still suffering. I care little for out of work Polish / German coal workers. All "our" factories are now in China.

 

Quote

End domestic flights - there's no need to fly from London to Edinburgh when there's a perfectly good railway line (to get the thread back on topic!). You may need to allow positioning moves, but that's all.

 

Not going to happen to a great extent - many passengers on internal flights have forward (usually long distance) connections etc. Long distance train travel is impractical for them.

 

Lets face it public transport (all forms) in the UK is just not fit for purpose in our global warming / green future. OK perhaps in the South East, improving (slowly) in Greater Manchester & other cities, But not everyone lives in these places. What alternatives for them when they are priced / forced off the road ?, our rural bus / rail services are abysmal.

 

Work is being done on the (old) house insulation problem - still a long way to go.

 

http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/563165/pdf4-saint-gobain_energy_house_leaflet_high_res_v8.pdf

 

Brit15

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Like what did not happen in Lancashire, Yorkshire, North Notts, North East, Scotland, Wales etc. Many mining communities in these areas are still suffering. I care little for out of work Polish / German coal workers. All "our" factories are now in China.

 

 

Not going to happen to a great extent - many passengers on internal flights have forward (usually long distance) connections etc. Long distance train travel is impractical for them.

 

Lets face it public transport (all forms) in the UK is just not fit for purpose in our global warming / green future. OK perhaps in the South East, improving (slowly) in Greater Manchester & other cities, But not everyone lives in these places. What alternatives for them when they are priced / forced off the road ?, our rural bus / rail services are abysmal.

 

Work is being done on the (old) house insulation problem - still a long way to go.

 

http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/563165/pdf4-saint-gobain_energy_house_leaflet_high_res_v8.pdf

 

Brit15

 

And it's that kind of selfishness that causes a lot of the problem. Instead of looking at our government's mistakes and trying to avoid repeating them, we should just make others suffer too? You'll note that I mentioned the former mining areas of the UK earlier in the thread, I want to avoid a repeat of that.

 

I do take your point in your second paragraph, although a joined up public transport system could fix that. With your third point, however, I did say that we need to improve public transport first to make it easier to use cars less - even here in the south east our bus services are terrible if you're not in a city centre. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Nick C said:

I do take your point in your second paragraph, although a joined up public transport system could fix that. With your third point, however, I did say that we need to improve public transport first to make it easier to use cars less - even here in the south east our bus services are terrible if you're not in a city centre.

 

I've lived in and around the Manchester area for years. Public transport was always pretty good for going radially in or out of town but completely impractical for getting around it - e.g. between where I lived and where I worked a lot of that time. Not sure what could be done about that though, unless a tram line running next to the M60 was viable.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I've lived in and around the Manchester area for years. Public transport was always pretty good for going radially in or out of town but completely impractical for getting around it - e.g. between where I lived and where I worked a lot of that time. Not sure what could be done about that though, unless a tram line running next to the M60 was viable.

 

Not sure which part of the M60 you mean, but the Stockport - Stalybridge (and Ashton) link now seems firmly back on the table, as are the Middleton and Rochdale radial extensions, and of course the Trafford Park link is nearing completion. Even if none of these suit (suited) you, it shows there is a determination to continue expansion, so perhaps nothing is off the table, many years hence.

 

The reported success of the Sheffield Tram-Train trial may well do even more for Manchester.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Not sure which part of the M60 you mean, but the Stockport - Stalybridge (and Ashton) link now seems firmly back on the table, as are the Middleton and Rochdale radial extensions, and of course the Trafford Park link is nearing completion. Even if none of these suit (suited) you, it shows there is a determination to continue expansion, so perhaps nothing is off the table, many years hence.

 

The reported success of the Sheffield Tram-Train trial may well do even more for Manchester.

You can get in and out of the city centre easily, and ever more easily, by public transport, the problem was getting to two different places around it. So by the M60 I meant a hypothetical tram circle line. For example I used to live in Sale and worked in Stockport, that was a real nuisance when the car was in the garage. Stockport - Stalybridge sounds like a welcome exception to the radial rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
31 minutes ago, Baby Deltic said:

Lower the carbon footprint, never mind the tons of nuclear waste.

From a technical perspective, that's one of the easiest of the problems to solve - There's a type of reactor called a molten salt reactor, which can use as it's fuel, the low-grade Uranium that's left over as waste from conventional reactors - I'm not sure of the exact details, but it's somehow made into a salt (hence the name), which is kept in a molten state by the power in the reactor, and kept in place by a frozen plug.

 

They have the wonderful property that, in the event of a catastrophic power failure (like at Fukushima), the plug melts, and the contents are dumped into a shallow pool, where it solidifies and becomes safe* - so there's no risk of it going critical. The problem, however, is that they can't be used for enrichment, so most governments aren't particularly interested in building them...

 

* or at least, doesn't contaminate the surrounding area!

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Nick C said:

From a technical perspective, that's one of the easiest of the problems to solve - There's a type of reactor called a molten salt reactor, which can use as it's fuel, the low-grade Uranium that's left over as waste from conventional reactors - I'm not sure of the exact details, but it's somehow made into a salt (hence the name), which is kept in a molten state by the power in the reactor, and kept in place by a frozen plug.

 

They have the wonderful property that, in the event of a catastrophic power failure (like at Fukushima), the plug melts, and the contents are dumped into a shallow pool, where it solidifies and becomes safe* - so there's no risk of it going critical. The problem, however, is that they can't be used for enrichment, so most governments aren't particularly interested in building them...

 

* or at least, doesn't contaminate the surrounding area!

I like the sound of that, there's that it sounds like I could get behind.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

You can get in and out of the city centre easily, and ever more easily, by public transport, the problem was getting to two different places around it. So by the M60 I meant a hypothetical tram circle line. For example I used to live in Sale and worked in Stockport, that was a real nuisance when the car was in the garage. Stockport - Stalybridge sounds like a welcome exception to the radial rule.

I thought the tram was being extended from Ashton to Stalybridge. It doesn't go to Stockport at all. at the moment; perhaps an extension of the line from East Didsbury might be the way to go, there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I thought the tram was being extended from Ashton to Stalybridge. It doesn't go to Stockport at all. at the moment; perhaps an extension of the line from East Didsbury might be the way to go, there.

 I'd not heard of Stockport -Stalybridge but assumed from the post that it was a plan to make use of a not very heavily used bit of railway, which might make sense (although if we're talking trams and not tram-trains an alternative route into Stockport would be required). That said is it only barely used by passenger trains? Whenever I've been past it the rails don't look like they only see one train a week, so do freights or stock movements make use of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Reorte said:

 I'd not heard of Stockport -Stalybridge but assumed from the post that it was a plan to make use of a not very heavily used bit of railway, which might make sense (although if we're talking trams and not tram-trains an alternative route into Stockport would be required). That said is it only barely used by passenger trains? Whenever I've been past it the rails don't look like they only see one train a week, so do freights or stock movements make use of it?

Both. I think there's a binliner uses it, and one or two other trains. The big stumbling block is the single-line bridge over the M60 just down from Denton Island

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I like the sound of that, there's that it sounds like I could get behind.

Sadly, no-one has yet made a commercial one - I had heard that the Indian government were thinking of doing so, but that seems to have gone quiet. They'd probably pay for themselves, at least in the short term, as the fuel would have a negative cost - other countries would pay you to take their waste away!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...