Extinction Rebellion protesters - what to do?

Slime

LE
Two things spring to mind.
A. due to the lockdown there have been a lot less vehicle miles and so pollution has dropped
B. just how do they think the local council will be able to reduce pollution, close all factories, close the county off from the rest of the county, stop the wind blowing from the west.
Some ideas that have been done or are being considered are.

Banning diesel vehicles at set times.
Congestion charges for some vehicles.
A move to natural gas powered buses.
A move to increase electrification of vehicles.
Banning vehicles from some areas.
Increasing cycle use.
Increasing cycle lanes.
Reducing air flights.
etc etc
 

NSP

LE
Some ideas that have been done or are being considered are.

Banning diesel vehicles at set times.
Congestion charges for some vehicles.
A move to natural gas powered buses.
A move to increase electrification of vehicles.
Banning vehicles from some areas.
Increasing cycle use.
Increasing cycle lanes.
Reducing air flights.
etc etc
If they want to increase electric vehicle take up they need to get onto central government to put incentives in place that bring the price down (I drive a 1.2l Peugeot 208. I bought it when it was £20 a year for the car tax. THe same model with the same emissions is £120 a year to tax now, is £16000otr (I got mine for £11000 less trade-in as I was going for basic but they had a mid-range in the showroom pool they needed to shift) and the electric version is £32000) and they also need to stop giving planning consent to developers unless their plans include a charging point on every driveway.

There's one - one - housing development that I've mapped for OpenStreetMap around here (and I've mapped them all) that indicates electric vehicle charging points on the plans.

Apparently, the regs have required them since 2012 so why are plans still being nodded through without them? Surely it's not because of corruption in the system, Mr. M***** B*** of a certain Somerset borough...?
 

Tyk

LE
The radioactive waste from nuclear power-stations is obviously a problem.
But couldn't the problem be solved by dropping the waste into a site deep in the Ocean. Such as the Mariana Trench. This is a big capacious trench which could safely accept centuries of atomic waste in its bottom.

Its bottom is over ten miles below the surface of the sea. Thus atomic waste deposited in it, would be covered by a layer of ten miles of water. This immensely thick shield could not be penetrated by any radiation to molest us.

So, why isn't this simple and obvious solution being adopted?
The entertaining thing about radioactive waste is that after about 6-700 years it's no more radioactive than the ore that the fuel was extracted from, in fact it could well be fuel by then depending what the engineers come up with. There's a lot of those ores on the planet.
If it comes to it bung the waste in a subduction zone and it will be munched up by the planet it came from.

There's really only one effective existing renewable generation source and that's hydro, wind is unreliable, expensive in materials and energy to set up and barely if ever pays its way compared to the effort expended to erect it, solar isn't up to snuff and can only work in daylight in the sunnier bits of the planet, biomass is a farce and it's burning fuel so CO2 is going to upset Scoldilocks and her crowd.
Hydro needs nice valleys to be drowned of course so it upsets all sorts of people.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
Not really, nuclear power doesn't produce carbon dioxide as a waste product and therefore is probably the only realistic option for large scale electricity generation that doesn't involve fossil fuels.

Her going to work for Shell or BP would be a proper renunciation of extinction rebellion's position.
we need carbon dioxide though, the ideal levels for maintaining the biosphere is 6 times current levels. last century CO2 levels got so low we were not far off stall levels. the recent increase due to all that volcanic activity has given us a 14% greener planet with NO increase in temperatures or sea levels according to NASA data. something the IPCC is finally facing up to after 25 years of nonsense..

double CO2 and it can effect temperatures but it only does that the once and the increase is barely noticeable. increase it 20x and nothing changes.

the problem with nuc is we went for dirty messy nuc so we could build wmds

seeing as extinction rebellion are often vegan nutters they should embrace CO2 for what it is - plant food, it was never a poison - that was just an excuse to tax something as important as oxygen while doing nothing about it.

three and a half trillion wasted on fake science and bad models so far. - a good earner if you can get on the bandwagon.

these people should be complaining about actual pollution from their own lifestyles and stop shitting the planet up with water bottles, microbeads and tofu wrappers
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
The entertaining thing about radioactive waste is that after about 6-700 years it's no more radioactive than the ore that the fuel was extracted from, in fact it could well be fuel by then depending what the engineers come up with. There's a lot of those ores on the planet.
If it comes to it bung the waste in a subduction zone and it will be munched up by the planet it came from.

There's really only one effective existing renewable generation source and that's hydro, wind is unreliable, expensive in materials and energy to set up and barely if ever pays its way compared to the effort expended to erect it, solar isn't up to snuff and can only work in daylight in the sunnier bits of the planet, biomass is a farce and it's burning fuel so CO2 is going to upset Scoldilocks and her crowd.
Hydro needs nice valleys to be drowned of course so it upsets all sorts of people.
I think geothermal is underused and solar can be used in more ways. wind is a waste of time and electric cars are just creating more pollution we cannot undo.

the least polluting medium for fuel is hydrogen IMO.
 

Tyk

LE
I think geothermal is underused and solar can be used in more ways. wind is a waste of time and electric cars are just creating more pollution we cannot undo.

the least polluting medium for fuel is hydrogen IMO.
For portable power, which includes refuelling time, I agree Hydrogen is the likely and practical way forwards, just need a nice chunk of generating power to electrolyse.
I didn't mention geothermal as there aren't that many places it's really viable.

I agree on your CO2 post #6524, it's a red herring, as you say it's plant food and it's been many times higher in the past with thriving ecologies.
 
The radioactive waste from nuclear power-stations is obviously a problem.
But couldn't the problem be solved by dropping the waste into a site deep in the Ocean. Such as the Mariana Trench. This is a big capacious trench which could safely accept centuries of atomic waste in its bottom.

Its bottom is over ten miles below the surface of the sea. Thus atomic waste deposited in it, would be covered by a layer of ten miles of water. This immensely thick shield could not be penetrated by any radiation to molest us.

So, why isn't this simple and obvious solution being adopted?
A massive pile of radioactives, under intense pressure... not sure you thought this one in detail.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Today XR protesters scaled the walls of the main Bristol council building and started a protest on the roof about poor air quality.

They say they will stay there until the council promise to reduce pollution levels.

I couldn’t help thinking it was a shame that most of the buildings in front of them are too far for air rifle pellets to reach the protesters.
But think how much gull and pigeon shit they’ll have to put up with while they’re there.
 

g4eddie

Old-Salt
To be fair i agree with a lot of the power generation and other stuff here.
However what about Bio-Digestion as a source of clean(-ish ) methane to burn....

All the paper and card refuse this and other countries produce? We could easily and cleanly digest it and cheaply as it is in huge quantities - better than landfill.

All the waste wood - again bio-digest for methane

Sewage - almost limitless quantities from us humans - bio-digest and save rivers etc. for methane.


responses on a postage stamp

G4Eddie
 
Last edited:

Awol

LE
To be fair i agree with a lot of the power generation and other stuff here.
However what about Bio-Digestion as a source of clean(-ish ) methane to burn....

All the paper and card refuse this and other countries produce? We could easily and cleanly digest it and cheaply as it is in huge quantities - better than landfill.

All the waste wood - again bio-digest fir methane

Sewage - almost limitless quantities from us humans - bio-digest and save rivers etc. for menthane.


responses on a postage stamp1

G4Eddie
Doesn't bio-digestion take so long to occur that it’s impractical? I remember some contrived tv programme a while ago when a b-list celeb was trying out different environmental experiments so that he could save the planet.

In a barn on a farm he rigged up some silage and organic matter in a big sealed container about the size of a car, tapped off it to capture any gasses produced, and went home to bed.

The next day, ‘lots’ of gas had been captured, enough apparently to heat the cattle. To much fanfare, a very BFO blast furnace was fired up and roared like an angry dragon, fuelled apparently by the minuscule amount of methane from the night before.

Celeb patiently explains that we didn’t need fossil fuels, all we needed was a bit of ingenuity.
 

endure

GCM
Today XR protesters scaled the walls of the main Bristol council building and started a protest on the roof about poor air quality.

They say they will stay there until the council promise to reduce pollution levels.

I couldn’t help thinking it was a shame that most of the buildings in front of them are too far for air rifle pellets to reach the protesters.

I bet they didn't get there on the train ;-)
 

endure

GCM
I never tire of watching this...

I like the fact that it wasnt just one or two people, it was most of the crowd piling in to throw a punch or give a kick.
 

Chef

LE
Doesn't bio-digestion take so long to occur that it’s impractical? I remember some contrived tv programme a while ago when a b-list celeb was trying out different environmental experiments so that he could save the planet.

In a barn on a farm he rigged up some silage and organic matter in a big sealed container about the size of a car, tapped off it to capture any gasses produced, and went home to bed.

The next day, ‘lots’ of gas had been captured, enough apparently to heat the cattle. To much fanfare, a very BFO blast furnace was fired up and roared like an angry dragon, fuelled apparently by the minuscule amount of methane from the night before.

Celeb patiently explains that we didn’t need fossil fuels, all we needed was a bit of ingenuity.
Might be this one. Kevin McCloud is a reasonable presenter but I seem to remember a building project he was involved in went tits up.


If anyone s really serious about cutting down car usage then I'd suggest that new builds should have a 'No car ownership' clause. They shouldn't be necessary in the larger towns with good public transport systems.
 

Awol

LE
Might be this one. Kevin McCloud is a reasonable presenter but I seem to remember a building project he was involved in went tits up.


If anyone s really serious about cutting down car usage then I'd suggest that new builds should have a 'No car ownership' clause. They shouldn't be necessary in the larger towns with good public transport systems.
Nope not him, he at least has credibility. The bloke I’m thinking of was a well known face, but had no background in engineering or architecture. The program was farcical, obviously contrived as the results from the various experiments into alternative energy were always remarkably successful, and the message was continually hammered in that fossil fuels will soon kill us all.
 

giatttt

Old-Salt
The entertaining thing about radioactive waste is that after about 6-700 years it's no more radioactive than the ore that the fuel was extracted from, in fact it could well be fuel by then depending what the engineers come up with. There's a lot of those ores on the planet.
If it comes to it bung the waste in a subduction zone and it will be munched up by the planet it came from.

There's really only one effective existing renewable generation source and that's hydro, wind is unreliable, expensive in materials and energy to set up and barely if ever pays its way compared to the effort expended to erect it, solar isn't up to snuff and can only work in daylight in the sunnier bits of the planet, biomass is a farce and it's burning fuel so CO2 is going to upset Scoldilocks and her crowd.
Hydro needs nice valleys to be drowned of course so it upsets all sorts of people.
If you go down the molten salt breeder route, then the physics dictates that you can have smallish fail safe reactors that don't produce any meaningful weapons grade material. We also need to have a hard look at how we classify low level waste as such and how we process it, right now we just store it as we can't show anyone how we can get it to absolute zero radioactivity. We can't get to absolute zero as our bodies give off more radiation than lumps of granite.

Hydro has a slight problem in that you need to have a dam of some sort and they have a nasty habit of bursting if you don't design and maintain them with sufficient diligence. Even if you get that right then you have to deal with them silting up and the lack of nutrients travelling downstream.

Some encouraging results using compressed Nitrogen systems to provide energy recover in buses that combined with a small diesel engine would make a massive difference to our inner cities and urban areas.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top