Extinction Rebellion protesters - what to do?

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
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
we know how to clean burn stuff with better gassification right back from when we started grinding coal into dust, even the little camping wood burners understand burning the 'smoke'. we have understood clean coal for 40 years with better filters to catch any nasties some of which is quite usefull.

all the plastics waste should be recycled - back into oil, it can be pressure cooked into viable diesel and petrol - there's a garage owner in the Philippines (iirc) who is doing it small scale and using street urchins to collect all the street rubbish up. I've thought for a long time that we need to be mining our rubbish dumps because they way they are made means they will never decompose so should be dealt with properly. a fraction of the wasted computer model money should have gone to proper eco projects that create third world jobs rather than first world profits - de desertification projects to stablise the sahara and even central spain/portugal, cleaning up the aral sea and pacific garbage patche. we also need to enforce marine reserves to restock the oceans, the increase in CO2 has boosted phytoplankton so the base of ocean life is safe, we are just wrecking the rest of it.

Methane is officially a greenhouse gas although they do not have any real proof over this because it is an even smaller percentage than CO2 - all the fuss over defrosting tundra releasing billions of tons of methane fails to mention that once defrosted those same peat bogs process 10x the amount making peat.

one thing we have plenty off right now is natural gas, 20 years ago the germans looked at ways of compressing your own house gas into tanks to power your car or motorcycle. - not as much money in that approach it seems.

one of the most efficient uses of wind power is to make hydrogen out of it.

I read a study years ago that because of the CO2 multiplier effect we could burn every last ounce of fossil fuel and only increase the global temp by 2 degrees, but seeing as the historical global average is 22 degrees we have a long way to go from the 14.1 degrees we currently sit at - although seeing as an ice age is officially 12.7 degrees we are closer to the last ice age and I would expect it to keep warming up for some time yet but only blaming man for it is just lazy. we are messing the place up and we can do things to alter the local weather patterns if we undo some of that damage but we cannot magically cool the place down again to satisfy a warped self serving agenda.

the science needs to be truthful again but there is too much money in it so they keep pushing results that they cannot even repeat. Micheal Mann deleted his hockey stick data when the senate demanded access to it. the scientific fraud is off the scale. universities are addicted to the money which is why they always say they need more to study it a bit further.

if the science was settled then according to Al Gore extinction rebellion would either be protesting under water or dancing on a glacier in london 13 years ago.
 

giatttt

Old-Salt
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.
Outside of London all public transport is in private hands, viz until there is sufficient numbers of bus users then there isn't going to be a bus, a classic catch 22. Separating the planning of retail from housing has led to them being placed in islands that only private cars can join up.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
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.
by molten salts you mean thorium - as suggested by einstein, one of the US universities has just turned their test reactor off after decades of bimbling along.

I think the two useful things about thorium is every village can have its own reactor and they can be used to burn up existing nuclear waste. - I also agree with a previous post saying chuck in back into the mantle.

we just need to push the science forward because china is likely to get their first, a dustbin sized reactor is feasible though and will probably come about after another form of arms race.

all that money we wasted promising a covid vaccine would be better spent on research than trying to prevent a few thousand deaths from being brought forward a bit.
 

TotalBanker

Old-Salt
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.
We are getting close to that already. Where I live theres has been an office knocked down and rebuilt to flats, a co-op that's about to be flattened and rebuilt into flats (both sites next to train station) and just down the road parkland being redone into flats/houses. Don't know about the parkland but the flats that were done already were built with less parking than flats. Immediate effect was my (much older) set of flats car park got inundated with parking from the new flats.
The soon to be built flats had an open day a years or so ago to show plans. They were asked then about parking and remarkably spent a great deal of time trying to avoid the question. Eventually they came up with 2 answers. A) the government/council wont let them build a minimum of one space per flat. Its now something like a quarter of flats will have parking or b) no one will want cars, because the flats are right near a train station with good bus links.
This is despite the fact my town is 5 minutes each way away form the A2 and A20, 2 large travel arteries in Kent and a lot of the places to go that aren't in either bus distance or train travel to London would require a car. The woman walked away after I told her that.
When I informed the developers that all that will happen is that new flat owners will park in the surrounding streets (as they did with the last development), I was told they would not in fact do this.
 

Chef

LE
Outside of London all public transport is in private hands, viz until there is sufficient numbers of bus users then there isn't going to be a bus, a classic catch 22. Separating the planning of retail from housing has led to them being placed in islands that only private cars can join up.
Fair points. But if it was applied it would see the prices of housing developments drop as there is no infrastructure. Thus encouraging the developers to sort it out in order to maintain their profit margins.

Near where I live the original plans for a large estate built on ex-military ex-council land had a dinky little row of shops included. Not to be seen in the actual construction. However there is a tube station within a ten minute walk plus three bus routes a large supermarket and traditional sopping street all well within the ten minute range. The number of car spaces is dwarfed by the number of dwellings and most houses have two cars on the go.

The other new racket is selling parking spaces £10-£30k lease hold in some cases. Throw in the fact that the infrastructure like drainage, sewers and the like is not being upgraded and we're storing up trouble.
 

Awol

LE
we know how to clean burn stuff with better gassification right back from when we started grinding coal into dust, even the little camping wood burners understand burning the 'smoke'. we have understood clean coal for 40 years with better filters to catch any nasties some of which is quite usefull.

all the plastics waste should be recycled - back into oil, it can be pressure cooked into viable diesel and petrol - there's a garage owner in the Philippines (iirc) who is doing it small scale and using street urchins to collect all the street rubbish up. I've thought for a long time that we need to be mining our rubbish dumps because they way they are made means they will never decompose so should be dealt with properly. a fraction of the wasted computer model money should have gone to proper eco projects that create third world jobs rather than first world profits - de desertification projects to stablise the sahara and even central spain/portugal, cleaning up the aral sea and pacific garbage patche. we also need to enforce marine reserves to restock the oceans, the increase in CO2 has boosted phytoplankton so the base of ocean life is safe, we are just wrecking the rest of it.

Methane is officially a greenhouse gas although they do not have any real proof over this because it is an even smaller percentage than CO2 - all the fuss over defrosting tundra releasing billions of tons of methane fails to mention that once defrosted those same peat bogs process 10x the amount making peat.

one thing we have plenty off right now is natural gas, 20 years ago the germans looked at ways of compressing your own house gas into tanks to power your car or motorcycle. - not as much money in that approach it seems.

one of the most efficient uses of wind power is to make hydrogen out of it.

I read a study years ago that because of the CO2 multiplier effect we could burn every last ounce of fossil fuel and only increase the global temp by 2 degrees, but seeing as the historical global average is 22 degrees we have a long way to go from the 14.1 degrees we currently sit at - although seeing as an ice age is officially 12.7 degrees we are closer to the last ice age and I would expect it to keep warming up for some time yet but only blaming man for it is just lazy. we are messing the place up and we can do things to alter the local weather patterns if we undo some of that damage but we cannot magically cool the place down again to satisfy a warped self serving agenda.

the science needs to be truthful again but there is too much money in it so they keep pushing results that they cannot even repeat. Micheal Mann deleted his hockey stick data when the senate demanded access to it. the scientific fraud is off the scale. universities are addicted to the money which is why they always say they need more to study it a bit further.

if the science was settled then according to Al Gore extinction rebellion would either be protesting under water or dancing on a glacier in london 13 years ago.
Simply excellent.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
someone did a study in cities that led in part to the roof top garden movement.

if Kahn spent a few quid greening the roadsides to absorb the pollution and maybe running a network of elevated covered cycle highways down main routes pollution in london would fall - the cycleways would also provide shade and reduce some of the heat island effect. london IMO needs a proper cycle infrastructure with changing rooms, manned underground bike stores and such like the dutch have. many commuter trains could add a cycle carriage specifically for bikes and owners.

then a better shared car scheme - if you kept a fleet of electric cars at some supermarkets a lot of folks would use those in places like chiswick and hammersmith.

the biggest issue is people, london has at least 7m more than it needs or can cope with. add a shed load of tourism and it gets worse.
 
someone did a study in cities that led in part to the roof top garden movement.

if Kahn spent a few quid greening the roadsides to absorb the pollution and maybe running a network of elevated covered cycle highways down main routes pollution in london would fall - the cycleways would also provide shade and reduce some of the heat island effect. london IMO needs a proper cycle infrastructure with changing rooms, manned underground bike stores and such like the dutch have. many commuter trains could add a cycle carriage specifically for bikes and owners.

then a better shared car scheme - if you kept a fleet of electric cars at some supermarkets a lot of folks would use those in places like chiswick and hammersmith.

the biggest issue is people, london has at least 7m more than it needs or can cope with. add a shed load of tourism and it gets worse.
A simpler short term solution that would benefit London is more park&train facilities.

I used to drive into London on The M3 3-5 times/week. The journey is easy at first but goes tits up when you get to Sunbury. There are little used railway stations like Sunbury, Upper Halliford and Shepperton with plenty of scabby open land near them.

Why not build car parks so people who don't live near stations can drive up the M3 and then get a 25-30 minute train ride into Waterloo. Quicker, cheaper, less polluting, no CC, no exorbitant parking charges, more relaxing, do stuff on the train etc.

I am sure thus could be rinsed and repeated on all the main arterial roads into London (or any other city).
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
A simpler short term solution that would benefit London is more park&train facilities.

I used to drive into London on The M3 3-5 times/week. The journey is easy at first but goes tits up when you get to Sunbury. There are little used railway stations like Sunbury, Upper Halliford and Shepperton with plenty of scabby open land near them.

Why not build car parks so people who don't live near stations can drive up the M3 and then get a 25-30 minute train ride into Waterloo. Quicker, cheaper, less polluting, no CC, no exorbitant parking charges, more relaxing, do stuff on the train etc.

I am sure thus could be rinsed and repeated on all the main arterial roads into London (or any other city).
the best example was the newcastle metro IMO.

if was like a xmas tree with the buses doing circuits to the metro then the metro took you into town, it was quick cheap and efficient.

then they had to sell off the bus routes and were stuck with the metro, so every single bus now goes into the centre - or it seems like they do.

its why I said proper bike and ride facilities but the public will not embrace anything unless they have a means of staying dry or drying off.
 
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.
Some interesting points there.

Many of the problems with nuclear waste can be resolved with integral fast reactors. They are more efficient, can use nuclear waste and produce much less waste.

I have always felt that hydro is regarded as the poor brother of electricity generation. Somebody followed on and said dams were a problem (which they are) but hydro does not necessarily need big dams. Based on the Ham Hydro project inconspicuous turbines can be integrated into rivers.


Ham Hydro is only planned to generate 1.6GWh but it is only one small facility. But the real benefit of hydro is that the power source is reusable as it just flows on to the next turbine. One turbine at every weir on the Thames would generate a large amount of power.

The amount of lost potential energy on our river system nationwide is phenomenal.

Using this energy might not solve all of our problems but it will certainly help.
 

giatttt

Old-Salt
Why not build car parks so people who don't live near stations can drive up the M3 and then get a 25-30 minute train ride into Waterloo. Quicker, cheaper, less polluting, no CC, no exorbitant parking charges, more relaxing, do stuff on the train etc.

I am sure thus could be rinsed and repeated on all the main arterial roads into London (or any other city).
IIRC that great businessman Bob Horton drove the sale of lots of Station Car parks, its never recovered
 
IIRC that great businessman Bob Horton drove the sale of lots of Station Car parks, its never recovered
Indeed. Most station car parks are a bit of a joke. When I lived in Camberley I think the CP had about ten spaces (the train service was shite as well). Most residents drove to Woking which had hundreds of places (although that somehow defeats the point I think).

I was thinking more along the lines of new mega car parks on the outskirts for a park and train service.
 
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.
Sounds like the sort of thing Dick Strawbridge would do, sorry "Major" Strawbridge. Loved his stuff on scrapheap challenge, then he had a serious of his own with one of the first episodes on taking old chip oil and making bio diesel out of it. Had my Missus believing we could buy big vats of veggie oil and run her diesel 4WD when the price went up....
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
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.
SWMBO is on a planning committee for our HA, it seems that all new builds in London on HA property are being built with a mac of 2 car spaces and they are for the 2 registered disabled flats in each block, but they have bike sheds for over 100 bikes in some developments.

Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
 

Chef

LE
A simpler short term solution that would benefit London is more park&train facilities.

I used to drive into London on The M3 3-5 times/week. The journey is easy at first but goes tits up when you get to Sunbury. There are little used railway stations like Sunbury, Upper Halliford and Shepperton with plenty of scabby open land near them.

Why not build car parks so people who don't live near stations can drive up the M3 and then get a 25-30 minute train ride into Waterloo. Quicker, cheaper, less polluting, no CC, no exorbitant parking charges, more relaxing, do stuff on the train etc.

I am sure thus could be rinsed and repeated on all the main arterial roads into London (or any other city).
Do you not see the problem with your idea? (You missed out ULEZ charges but I'll let you off)

Options for urban transport are:

a) Make public transport so cheap and reliable that nobody needs to drive into town or

b) Make motoring so expensive that people have to take public transport whatever the cost and allow extra time to make sure of getting into work on time.

Which do you think the mayor of London would opt for? Of course he gets a guaranteed parking space for his chauffeur driven company car. So no skin off his nose.

His father was a bus driver you know.
 
Do you not see the problem with your idea? (You missed out ULEZ charges but I'll let you off)

Options for urban transport are:

a) Make public transport so cheap and reliable that nobody needs to drive into town or

b) Make motoring so expensive that people have to take public transport whatever the cost and allow extra time to make sure of getting into work on time.

Which do you think the mayor of London would opt for? Of course he gets a guaranteed parking space for his chauffeur driven company car. So no skin off his nose.

His father was a bus driver you know.
I don't really see any showstopper problem. It's basically just an major extension of Park and Ride (which many towns and cities have currently) designed to keep the centre of town free of traffic.

My point was that the park & train facilities would be outside London (just), so the emission charge would be irrelevant. Also, it is doubtful if anyone commutes into London or inside the ULEZ/CC zone in a car that isn't exempt from the charge.

Your option (a) would be ideal in many respects. However many people will never have easy access to public transport and will have to use private vehicles as feeders into public transport. In my last property I had to drive to the nearest bus stop before I could get a bus to one of three equidistant stations (and this was in north Hampshire), not that I ever did..
 

NSP

LE
a) Make public transport so cheap and reliable that nobody needs to drive into town or

b) Make motoring so expensive that people have to take public transport whatever the cost and allow extra time to make sure of getting into work on time.
That needs to be "and" not "or" at the end of a). The reason PT isn't so popular is because it costs more than the drive, involves rubbing shoulders with oiks, chavs and thieving toerags, is prone to delays and cancellations and is generally an unpleasant experience, to be contrasted with buses/trains in other countries, even poorer ones, where the two work together (so the bus will arrive enough minutes before the train leaves to move from one to the other, and vice versa) are cheap, frequent, safe, clean and reliable. Holland, for example, has an excellent integrated, frequent and widespread PT system. It is cheaper to take the train from Schiphol to The Hague than to hire a car, even a small one.

I drove from Montrose to Taunton last week. I put £88 in the tank - which could have been less if I'd not torn the arse out of it once I was clear of Scotlands love-in with average speed cameras on principle routes - and the company paid £85 for the car hire (SUV). It took me nine hours with stops for a pee and refuelling. The tank wasn't full at the start, either, as it had been brought up from Dundee for the drop-off at the ship.

The train - cheapest option: £243, change three times, taxis at each end coming to around £25, seventeen hours, rubbing shoulders with potential virus carriers. quickest option: £310, sit on the platform in Edinburgh for 2.5hrs, twelve hours total, plus the taxis and the risk. And that's all if it goes to plan.

Even on a good day, in the absence of flights, which would be my normal transport for that journey, you're not getting me out of the car and onto PT.

It's the same at the micro-level - there's a bus every two hours from my village into town. The return fare is more than what my car uses in petrol to get there and back with two hours in the multistory thrown in. On top of that, the bus goes to the town centre, not anywhere near the supermarkets or other warehouse stores - and who wants to carry a months groceries for him, her and 2.4 bogglins on the bus anyway?
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top