Electrify more train lines between cities to cut carbon and congestion

[Moodster020]

here follows an observation...



Cliches of the years 2006-2010


*Climate Change
*Carbon footprint
*Carbon tax credits/offsetting thingummyjig

Cliches of the years 1985-1995
* Acid Rain
* CfC's
* The Greenhouse effect
* The Ozone layer

What happened to that last lot??

The environmental fundamentalists are at it once again with their latest fad!

I pray for the day that i don't hear "Global carbon footprint" (arrange as applicable) in any given day :roll:

 

[Swift-Deere]

here follows an observation...



Cliches of the years 2006-2010


*Climate Change
*Carbon footprint
*Carbon tax credits/offsetting thingummyjig

Cliches of the years 1985-1995
* Acid Rain
* CfC's
* The Greenhouse effect
* The Ozone layer

What happened to that last lot??

The environmental fundamentalists are at it once again with their latest fad!

I pray for the day that i don't hear "Global carbon footprint" (arrange as applicable) in any given day :roll:

Well said, its about Time AL Gore and other liberal Hippie nut jobs shut up spouting rubbish about there great green con and left us alone!!!

 

[thelem]

here follows an observation...

Cliches of the years 2006-2010

*Climate Change
*Carbon footprint
*Carbon tax credits/offsetting thingummyjig

Cliches of the years 1985-1995
* Acid Rain
* CfC's
* The Greenhouse effect
* The Ozone layer

What happened to that last lot??

Acid Rain - I think that's still a problem, not sure why it isn't in the news so much.
CFCs - These are now banned, although you still need to be careful disposing of old fridges / freezers / air conditioners
The greenhouse effect - Just another term for climate change / carbon footprint etc. (Or to be more specific, releasing carbon causes the greenhouse effect which causes global warming).
The ozone layer - Due to restrictions on CFCs this problem has reduced, and I think the ozone layer is actually getting thicker now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well said, its about Time AL Gore and other liberal Hippie nut jobs shut up spouting rubbish about there great green con and left us alone!!!

That's an informed opinion is it? You know better than the scientists who have devoted their lives to studying these issues?

Personally I'd rather more people listened to the 'hippie nut jobs' so we have a bit of discomfort now, but still have a planet worth living on in 50 years time.

 

[Swift-Deere]

Acid Rain - I think that's still a problem, not sure why it isn't in the news so much.
CFCs - These are now banned, although you still need to be careful disposing of old fridges / freezers / air conditioners
The greenhouse effect - Just another term for climate change / carbon footprint etc. (Or to be more specific, releasing carbon causes the greenhouse effect which causes global warming).
The ozone layer - Due to restrictions on CFCs this problem has reduced, and I think the ozone layer is actually getting thicker now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That's an informed opinion is it? You know better than the scientists who have devoted their lives to studying these issues?

Personally I'd rather more people listened to the 'hippie nut jobs' so we have a bit of discomfort now, but still have a planet worth living on in 50 years time.

Many scientists have proven there's no such thing i think you will find

 

[Moodster020]

Getting a little off topic here but....

Many scientists have proven there's no such thing i think you will find

Well, there is in kind, but not as envisaged..

See,
What happens is that when the Sun runs out of its fuel in 3/4 billion years time or so (however long it is), it'll then turn into a "Red Giant" consuming all the planets upto about Mars (including Earth) within its fiery mass.

We will surely know about global warming then!!! (or is that Global Vaporising?)

Best get that spaceship built!
:-?

 

[43021HST]

I,m quite sceptical about greener energy but I dont know where I am with nuclear energy, sometimes I sopport it sometimes I dont but two major drawbacks is that if one melts down it will likely kill half of england of and where do you dump the waste, If they made energy from nuclear waste that might not be a bad idea.

 

[Swift-Deere]

Getting a little off topic here but....



Well, there is in kind, but not as envisaged..

See,
What happens is that when the Sun runs out of its fuel in 3/4 billion years time or so (however long it is), it'll then turn into a "Red Giant" consuming all the planets upto about Mars (including Earth) within its fiery mass.

We will surely know about global warming then!!! (or is that Global Vaporising?)

Best get that spaceship built!
:-?

Lol as long as it meet stringent emissions standards

 

[gchst]

I dont see a point in electrifying london to bristol because they would still need diesel to run to cardiff,swansea,carmathen,etc.

 

[Nonsense]

I dont see a point in electrifying london to bristol because they would still need diesel to run to cardiff,swansea,carmathen,etc.

Dual mode, Motive Power swaps or dragging would see to that.

 

[Spaceflower]

here follows an observation...



Cliches of the years 2006-2010


*Climate Change
*Carbon footprint
*Carbon tax credits/offsetting thingummyjig

Cliches of the years 1985-1995
* Acid Rain
* CfC's
* The Greenhouse effect
* The Ozone layer


What happened to that last lot??

The environmental fundamentalists are at it once again with their latest fad!

I pray for the day that i don't hear "Global carbon footprint" (arrange as applicable) in any given day :roll:

Acid rain still exists but is relatively less important as it is more localised, affecting only simple things like fish, trees and Norway.

CFC's were banned.

The hole in the ozone layer was a consequence of CFC's. Now, it is the problem of ozone in the wrong part of the atmosphere, OUR PART and is a very nasty free radical caused by smog.

The greenhouse effect was a term which was probably quietly dropped in favour of climate change when we realised the Greenhouse Effect was actually a natural process which we rely on, otherwise mean global temps. would be below freezing. Incidentally, climate change is also nothing new and should be re-termed 'human-induced climate change' or 'rapid-onset climate change'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's an informed opinion is it? You know better than the scientists who have devoted their lives to studying these issues?
.

It is widely accepted in the scientific community that climate change is overplayed. Statistics loved to be manipulated, especially by scientists. Not only does alot of their fuinding rely on the importance of climate change but so do so, so many jobs these days.....

 

[Moodster020]

It is widely accepted in the scientific community that climate change is overplayed. Statistics loved to be manipulated, especially by scientists. Not only does alot of their fuinding rely on the importance of climate change but so do so, so many jobs these days.....

Nail- meet head!

It's funny how the government are falling over themselves in an effort to promote the "Climate change" circus.

Climate change translated=

"I get to raise taxes in the name of carbon emissions while the populace agree to it all whole-heartedly"

 

[Swift-Deere]

Nail- meet head!

It's funny how the government are falling over themselves in an effort to promote the "Climate change" circus.

Climate change translated=

"I get to raise taxes in the name of carbon emissions while the populace agree to it all whole-heartedly"

Climate change is also used as excuse by the left wing hippie lot to try and bring down modern western society ie close down power station, take cars of the road stop the sale of SUV and take planes out of the sky!!!

 

[starrymarkb]

I dont see a point in electrifying london to bristol because they would still need diesel to run to cardiff,swansea,carmathen,etc.

I think the reason they are looking at doing the GWML is because the fleet is up for renewal. Its either do it now or buy diesels and wait another 40 years. on the MML there are more newish Meridians alongside a handful of HSTs

Remember that the commuter services on the MML are provided by Thameslink, using Electric stock. All services (express and commuter) on the GWML are diesel (with the exception of HEx). Also the GWML will be using a lot of second hand units - mostly 319s from the MML released by the new Thameslink stock.

By Electrifying the Core GWML they can use IEP bi-modes with just the Westcountry needing diesels (since they turn off at Reading) - it could mean they can bin the Diesel only IEP with high speed DMUs (son of Voyager/Adelante) for the Berks and Hants, and Bi-Mode IEPs everywhere else. Pretty sure that it was calculated that a 10 veh Bi-mode IEP might have issues with the Devon Banks

 

[Hydro]

I,m quite sceptical about greener energy but I dont know where I am with nuclear energy, sometimes I sopport it sometimes I dont but two major drawbacks is that if one melts down it will likely kill half of england of and where do you dump the waste, If they made energy from nuclear waste that might not be a bad idea.

Nuclear energy is realistically the only way forward as things currently stand. It is actually very hard to "melt down " a nuclear reactor, and would involve all sorts of highly dangerous and illegal bypassing of failsafes and other safeguards. Contrary to popular belief, a nuclear reactor is not akin to a bubbling saucepan with the lid rattling on top. A reactor is specifically designed to SCRAM, or dump all its control rods into the reactor instantly stopping any nuclear fission reactions in case of an emergency.

The majority of nuclear waste is actually very low level in terms of radioactivity. Reactor components, used safety clothing and shields comprise the bulk of waste removed from a reactor site. Higher level waste consists of the spent fuel being removed from the reactor for reprocessing. This reprocessing converts the used fuel into reuseable fuel, and takes out all the extremely radioactive (and extremely useless) reactor byproducts which are vitrified into glass then sealed in multiple layers of steel and concrete, buried deep underground in geology safe from any water tables and capable of stopping the passage of any gamma radiation for thousands of years. Try as you might, I bet you still can't X-Ray Stonehenge. Work is on going to try and convert these highly radioactive byproducts into ones with shorter halflifes to reduce the time they are active for, a process known as transmutation.


Nuclear energy is extremely efficient, you can run a reactor on a tiny amount of fuel compared to coal or oil fired stations, and they produce no carbon emissions. France seems to have no problems, and they run on IIRC 60% nuclear generation. "Green power", specifically wind, requires vast vast installations to produce variable rates of power generation at a capacity not even close to what even a conventional power station can churn out.

 

[90019]

Higher level waste consists of the spent fuel being removed from the reactor for reprocessing..

IIRC it's something like 3% of the fuel used comes out as higher level waste.
But with this, it has to be taken into account how little fuel is used in the first plece.

 

[Waddon]

I think the reason they are looking at doing the GWML is because the fleet is up for renewal.

The other reason is Crossrail, which is now under construction, and will be putting up lines as far as Maidenhead, so it would be a relatively simple (in railway terms) matter of just keep going west from Maidenhead, with all the work crews and equipment already in place?

Also, by electrifying out to Oxford and Newbury, they will have the potential to divert some of those services into the crossrail tunnels.

 

[moonrakerz]

I,m quite sceptical about greener energy but I dont know where I am with nuclear energy, sometimes I sopport it sometimes I dont but two major drawbacks is that if one melts down it will likely kill half of england of and where do you dump the waste, If they made energy from nuclear waste that might not be a bad idea.

Unfortunately I think you have been led up the "nuclear is deadly" path by the anti-nuclear (at any cost) brigade.

If "one melts down" it WILL NOT "kill half of England". Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are often quoted as horrific examples of what a meltdown will do.
The effects of Chernobyl have been greatly exaggerated, either deliberately or by well meaning people who "haven't seen this before" !
Three Mile Island is best summed up as a very alarmist movie and as bumper sticker I once saw in the States correctly stated: "More people died at Chappaquiddick Bridge than at Three Mile Island".

Waste in nowhere near the problem it is made out to be, the volume of the really nasty stuff that the eco-warriors are constantly bleating about is really very small - even after all these years of nuclear plants. Most waste is not as radioactive as your luminous wrist watch. Yours is actually a good idea - most of the low level waste is clothing which could be burnt !

I spent 10 years inside a small metal tube (very) close to lots of things nuclear. I am healthy, have all my own hair, don't glow in the dark, now retired; I have three children each with one head, two arms, two legs, ten toes/fingers.

Most of the so-called nuclear facts in the media, are, I am afraid, sensationalist rubbish !

 

[Spaceflower]

Unfortunately I think you have been led up the "nuclear is deadly" path by the anti-nuclear (at any cost) brigade.

If "one melts down" it WILL NOT "kill half of England". Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are often quoted as horrific examples of what a meltdown will do.
The effects of Chernobyl have been greatly exaggerated, either deliberately or by well meaning people who "haven't seen this before" !
Three Mile Island is best summed up as a very alarmist movie and as bumper sticker I once saw in the States correctly stated: "More people died at Chappaquiddick Bridge than at Three Mile Island".

Waste in nowhere near the problem it is made out to be, the volume of the really nasty stuff that the eco-warriors are constantly bleating about is really very small - even after all these years of nuclear plants. Most waste is not as radioactive as your luminous wrist watch. Yours is actually a good idea - most of the low level waste is clothing which could be burnt !

I spent 10 years inside a small metal tube (very) close to lots of things nuclear. I am healthy, have all my own hair, don't glow in the dark, now retired; I have three children each with one head, two arms, two legs, ten toes/fingers.

Most of the so-called nuclear facts in the media, are, I am afraid, sensationalist rubbish !

Chernobyl was bad, theres no denying it. Why is it still deserted today? The major concern I have about nuclear is its permanence. Also Chernobyl had far reaching impacts, even affecting sheep farming in Cumbria!

 

[jopsuk]

Chernobyl was certainly bad. However, it is ridiculous to raise it with regards to new-build reactors- even at the time, it was an outdated design of reactor in Russia, and the configuration hadn't been used in the west due to being dangerous. Even then, it took a supervisor deciding to disable several safety systems to bring about such a bad fire. It then took the Soviet lack of willingness to admit there was a problem for the problem to get so bad.

One of the overlooked factors in dealing with radioactive waste is that it is also highly toxic- the stable isotope of Uranium is a nasty heavy metal.

Whilst it won't be totally "clean" (as far as radioactive waste goes), if fusion is proven to be commercially viable then it will, pretty much, solve energy problems, with an added bonus that it does not produce by-products useful for weapons.

As for waste, the reall bad waste in this country is Windscale. So much of it was designed and built without the understanding of the possible extent of contamination. It's a very dangerous site now, with the crumbling of the remaining buildings being a big part of the problem.

Luminous wrsit watches- they haven't used radioactive materials in a long, long time. That's why "glow in the dark" stuff needs to have light shone on it first to "charge" it, whereas a WW2 glow-in-the-dark dial will still glow today even if it has been kept in an unopened box for years.

 

[Spaceflower]

However, it is ridiculous to raise it with regards to new-build reactors- even at the time, it was an outdated design of reactor in Russia, and the configuration hadn't been used in the west due to being dangerous. Even then, it took a supervisor deciding to disable several safety systems to bring about such a bad fire. It then took the Soviet lack of willingness to admit there was a problem for the problem to get so bad.

....which brings me back to my earlier point. Nuclear power generation is only as safe as the system in charge of it...........

 

[Old Timer]

The biggest risk as far as Nuclear energy is concerned is an Islamic type attack, however be reassured that any plane straying towards the various power stations will be shot out of the sky without hesitation by the RAF irrespective of any Political consequences.

 

[Waddon]

Heres a forum for discussing Nuclear Energy
http://www.topix.com/forum/energy/nuclear-energy
This forum is called 'RailUKforums' so any chance of us getting back on topic?

 

[moonrakerz]

Chernobyl was bad, theres no denying it. Why is it still deserted today? The major concern I have about nuclear is its permanence. Also Chernobyl had far reaching impacts, even affecting sheep farming in Cumbria!

Yes, it was bad - but nowhere near as bad as it was made out.

Glad you mentioned sheep ! Immediately after Chernobyl most Governments went into "headless chicken" mode to show their peoples that they were "doing something".
What did they do ?
Here's a few examples:-

“Sweden allowed 30 times more radioactivity in imported vegetables than in domestic ones
Israel allowed less radioactivity in food from Eastern Europe than from Western Europe
Norwegian authorities introduced a limit for cesium-137 in reindeer meat and game that was about 200 times lower than the natural dose in some regions of Norway.
336,000 people were evacuated from the contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union, where the radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about twice the natural dose. Later, the officially acceptable limit was set below the natural level and was five times lower than radiation at Grand Central Station in New York.
"Contaminated regions" were defined, using a level of radioactive cesium-137 in the ground ten times lower than the level of natural radioactive matter in the soil.”


Another scare story was in the "huge " number of cancers.
Practically all of these were "occult" cancers. These are cancers which are normally never detected because the "victim" dies of old age long before the cancer has any noticeable effect. When you test everyone for (in particular) Thyroid cancer you find many that would never be detected normally. It is estimated that some countries have occult thyroid cancer rates as high as 30%.

We are not going to power an all electric rail system using wind turbines !

 

[jon0844]

No, I agree. However, we can work at reducing the need for energy - such as the use of LED lighting to MASSIVELY cut the bills of lighting homes, offices, public places etc, lower power for electronic items and so on.

The large reductions on many things will help on things that can't so easily be reduced in consumption.

I still wonder how much energy is wasted by offices leaving lights on 24/7. It's not just the extra power we waste, but the fact that these businesses can afford to waste money.

To keep on topic, why is it that when I am passing Hornsey Depot at 0100 that all the trains are fully lit up? I thought FCC said it was working to turn lights off when trains were 'parked up'. I'm sure I've seen it in the past, and also on the TL side. Laziness or a change of policy?

 

[90019]

Yes, it was bad - but nowhere near as bad as it was made out.

It's a surprising amount of people who think that any radiation whatsoever will kill you or cause huge mutations, even though it's all around us.
Especially in granite, which usually has IIRC, between 10 and 20 ppm of uranium (most other rocks have between 1 and 5 ppm I think). It's the reason why Grand Central station, and Aberdeen as well, have relatively high levels of backgroud radiation.

 

[Spaceflower]

Comparing the dangers of nuclear power generation (or of the fuels used) with natural background radiation is playing it down a bit don't you think?
The gas given off by granite is radon and is radioactive. In confined spaces (such as a cellar), this gas can accumulate over a period of years and is linked to higher rates of lung cancer in these areas.
X-rays are potentially dangerous with chronic exposure, that's why staff operate the machine behind a screen. In fact the inventor died of cancer I believe.
Radiation might not create a new mutant species or give a fish 30 eyes and 4 rows of super sharp teeth but the fact remains that it is a deadly toxin which destroys living tissue (hence why it used to treat cancer) and damages cell dna, often leading to cell mutations (cancer). This is widely accepted and I know what moonrakerz would say, if you were called in as a test dummy to see how safe Pipyat is today........

 

[90019]

Comparing the dangers of nuclear power generation (or of the fuels used) with natural background radiation is playing it down a bit don't you think?

I know, that wasn't what I meant. I was talking about the belief held by some that any radiation whatsoever is deadly, not that the radiation from the fuel used is comparable to background radiation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The gas given off by granite is radon and is radioactive.

It is indeed, and it is formed by the alpha decay of the Uranium within the rock.

 

[Spaceflower]

I know, that wasn't what I meant. I was talking about the belief held by some that any radiation whatsoever is deadly, not that the radiation from the fuel used is comparable to background radiation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It is indeed, and it is formed by the alpha decay of the Uranium within the rock.

Look who's telling who here?

 

[90019]

Look who's telling who here?

Both!

 

[moonrakerz]

I know what moonrakerz would say, if you were called in as a test dummy to see how safe Pipyat is today........

Actually, the "test dummies" appear to be doing quite well !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.stm

To be a little more serious:

Again, the actual truth about what happened/is happening is very different from the "myth".
Various "zones" were established around Chernobyl, the most contaminated one with a radius of 30km. Various names are applied to this, depending on the degree of "scare" required: "Zone of Alienation, The Chernobyl Zone, The 30 Kilometer Zone, The Exclusion Zone, The Fourth Zone, or simply The Zone"

VERY frightening - BUT..........

3000 people work inside this zone
Another 3800 still work at Chernobyl itself (at "ground zero")
perhaps best of all - guided tours of the zone are available to the public

Finally: A quote from a UN report on the effects of Chernobyl:-

“Surprisingly, however, the worst harm was caused not by radiation, and not to the flesh, but to the minds”