Anyone got anything to say about rail electrification?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Electrify more train lines between cities to cut carbon and congestion
- Thread starter SWT Driver
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
90019
Established Member
I have to say, I'd be interested to go and see it; to see the abandoned city, completely deserted.
I remember seeing a documentary years ago which had a woman going back to see the flat she'd been living in as a little girl when they had to be evacuated.
Going back to the generation argument, we will switch to nuclear and renewable energy because there is no other choice. Gas supplies are likely to become increasingly unreliable, and coal has to generally be imported to and is dirty.
Here is the current power generation map and shows the backbone of the grid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_06_06_powerstations.pdf
Many well be surprised just how many renewable generation sites there is
http://www.psg.deloitte.com/resources/PS_EUR_Map_renewables.pdf
It still generates less than 10% of electricity, so clearly with gas central heating needing to be replaced and road and rail electrification, there needs to be a hell of a lot more.
Here is the current power generation map and shows the backbone of the grid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_06_06_powerstations.pdf
Many well be surprised just how many renewable generation sites there is
http://www.psg.deloitte.com/resources/PS_EUR_Map_renewables.pdf
It still generates less than 10% of electricity, so clearly with gas central heating needing to be replaced and road and rail electrification, there needs to be a hell of a lot more.
Wyvern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 1,573
Just announced:
"The Government has announced a huge expansion of nuclear power, naming 10 sites in England and Wales as suitable for new power stations."
And
"Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband told the Commons that there would be no new coal-fired power stations unless they were fitted with carbon capture and storage technology."
Announced by SKY NEWS
"The Government has announced a huge expansion of nuclear power, naming 10 sites in England and Wales as suitable for new power stations."
And
"Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband told the Commons that there would be no new coal-fired power stations unless they were fitted with carbon capture and storage technology."
Announced by SKY NEWS
PhilipW
Member
I'm struggling. What has all this to do with electrifying railway lines ?
SWT Driver
Member
We're heading for brown out's as the Yanks call them or Black out's as we call them, because the demand for power is increasing and we don't have enough resources of our own to supply the increased demand.
A lot of our power already comes from France.
So if we start a large electrification program, whilst it maybe good to cut down on the use of diesel, we're just moving the problem from one place to another, we haven't got the power stations to generate the power to power the trains.
Today's trains are lardarse's they're bloated & heavy and with power doors, inverters, converters & air con, they just eat electricity.
Anyone know how to build a fusion reactor?
A lot of our power already comes from France.
So if we start a large electrification program, whilst it maybe good to cut down on the use of diesel, we're just moving the problem from one place to another, we haven't got the power stations to generate the power to power the trains.
Today's trains are lardarse's they're bloated & heavy and with power doors, inverters, converters & air con, they just eat electricity.
Anyone know how to build a fusion reactor?
Fusion reactor? There's one near Oxford. There's one being built in the south of France to commercial scale, that should be online around 2030 as far as I'm aware- if that's successful, then more will follow much more quickly. They want to make sure they've got it right first, though of course, as with the Large Hadron Collider, something very very unlikely (but possible, just) happens and it forms a black hole that swallows the Earth we won't know.
SWT Driver
Member
Fusion? I don't think so..
If you're on about the JET institute, that's worthless, it eats more electrical power than it generates.
If you're on about the JET institute, that's worthless, it eats more electrical power than it generates.
Old Timer
Established Member
Awwww SWTDriver 
Don't go spoiling it !
And there was me thinking that there is a God after all and in a few years time the French will disappear into a Black Hole !
Don't go spoiling it !And there was me thinking that there is a God after all and in a few years time the French will disappear into a Black Hole !
Wyvern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 1,573
Browns outs are when cycles are skipped so the power doesnt go off all together.
Think its happening already. I thought my kitchen light seemed dim so checked the mains voltage. 190 volts.
SWT Driver
Member
Our lights regularly go down.
Just recently the mains dropped out in the middle of a BIOS update, I managed to get the motherboard back, but my Vista x64 was completely screwed so had to spend 2hrs reinstalling it. It had been as solid as a rock until Southern Electric ****ed up!
They can do it already it's called the Channel Tunnel.
Just recently the mains dropped out in the middle of a BIOS update, I managed to get the motherboard back, but my Vista x64 was completely screwed so had to spend 2hrs reinstalling it. It had been as solid as a rock until Southern Electric ****ed up!
Awwww SWTDriver
And there was me thinking that there is a God after all and in a few years time the French will disappear into a Black Hole !
They can do it already it's called the Channel Tunnel.
Old Timer
Established Member
Trouble is the buggers emerge out of it again !They can do it already it's called the Channel Tunnel.
SWT Driver
Member
Well if the pound weren't so weak, they'd bugger off back to France!
Old Timer
Established Member
Tell me about it !
Schiphol used to be a haven. Not any more, leastways if you are using GBP
Schiphol used to be a haven. Not any more, leastways if you are using GBP
The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
Swift-Deere
Member
Hardly the most reliable information source is it?
Swift-Deere
Member
Faie enough
Old Timer
Established Member
There seems to be a failure to look for example at Papua New Guinea, which is basically a Country sat on an oil well, which is why Simon Mann and the other mercenaries were recently released.
There are also large oil deposits in Santos Bay off the coast of Brazil, large oil resevcies in Canada and Alaska and elsewhere.
Much of the oil remaining is however harder to reach but there are still known supplies for many, many years yet. I have no doubt the Guardian is on one of its lofty Liberal intellectual Left Wing crusades yet again, when facts can be manipulated to mean what you wish.
Shame it does not practice its Left Wing beliefs, in say the employment of its own staff !
There are also large oil deposits in Santos Bay off the coast of Brazil, large oil resevcies in Canada and Alaska and elsewhere.
Much of the oil remaining is however harder to reach but there are still known supplies for many, many years yet. I have no doubt the Guardian is on one of its lofty Liberal intellectual Left Wing crusades yet again, when facts can be manipulated to mean what you wish.
Shame it does not practice its Left Wing beliefs, in say the employment of its own staff !
I always find it amazing that people with no scientific qualifications (mainly in a lot of right wing tabloid newspapers) denounce all sorts of things. And because of this, large numbers of the population are completely unaware of the facts on a large number of subjects. So I don't think we can just point the finger at the Guardian, I'd include all the rest of the newspapers too. None of them can be considered reliable.
Anyway, if you want to read more on the subject
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=Global+Oil+Depletion
Anyway, if you want to read more on the subject
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=Global+Oil+Depletion
Last edited:
Swift-Deere
Member
Because the leftwing Government force the great green con into people's minds (i.e. forcing al gore's inconvenient truth to be shown in school) and scaremongering adverts like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8-ORuffBUE
why the liberal media like the BBC never stop banging on about climate change take for example the bbc one show country file, a program that used to be about rural issues such as Agriculture and rural life for the likes of farmers, horseriders, gamekeepers etc, now its abandoned them and ponders to the poncey liberal minded city type's you know the losers in there g-wiz's, smart cars or prisus and bangs on about climate change nonsence!!!
I think you'll find the incoming right wing government will be just as keen as well, the take their directions of bodies of scientists who work on consensus. There will of course always be people that disagree, but in my experience most amateurs disagree because of emotional concerns or vested interests, rather than any lucid understanding. It's not very bright really. I tend to believe experts in the field, rather than taxi drivers, Daily mail hacks, the bloke round the corner or bosses of low cost airlines.
'There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled in 2008(3). The Science Museum’s Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they’ve seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category(5). Never mind that they’ve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals. '
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/
'There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled in 2008(3). The Science Museum’s Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they’ve seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category(5). Never mind that they’ve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals. '
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/
Swift-Deere
Member
I wouldn't say that ALL scientists have consensus over global warming many believe that its happening but is natural not man made. after all we are coming out of a mini ice age so its naturally getting warmer
Last edited:
Old Timer
Established Member
The Left Wing press is following a pro-Government line whilst purporting to be "free thinking".
If they were actually free thinking they would have revealed that the oil crisis is not one of supplies as such, but one of two constituent parts.
The first is that much of the Middle East oil is in Countries which are either strongly Islamic or have strong Islamic leanings, and the US (and of course by association the UK) have managed to **** off with the way they are running around the Middle East defending the Israelis various human rights atrocities.
At the end of the day, Islamic brotherhood means more than any Nationalistic stance, and if and when push comes to shove brother will fall in line with brother against the Infidels.
The second is that the failure of some of the former Soviet Union Countries to benefit from the fall of Communism, coupled with the increasing power of former Communists, means that the previously secure oil sources in Eastern Europe, which were to replace reliance on the volatile Middle East, are now nowhere near as secure as they once were. Communism is making a comeback and once again the US and again by association, the UK) is seen as an aggressor.
The complete shambles that the US created in Iraq with their incompetent handling of the whole invasion scenario, including the dismemberment of the army and police left a power vacuum which allowed the Taliban to take hold of a Country they were previous forbidden (Saddam Hussein was their greatest ME enemy) and means that oil production can in no way be considered to be reliable.
So this leaves the US with a problem.
As I said earlier there are vast resources in Alaska and under Canada, as well as off the coast of Brazil. The first two are going to be very difficult to extract, and the US is not considered to be a real friend of any South American country, who prefer to look towards Europe and Asia rather than the US.
The US is particularly unpopular for its role in preventing the eradication of Malaria in South America. Basically in the 1930s all the South American countries most affected by Malaria (in particular Brazil) went to great lengths to actually eradicate the Mosquito population, so much so that they only existed in a small part of the south of the USA.
Realising that this would destroy a large market for their Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries the US refused to complete the eradication of the Mosquitos and they regained an even greater stronghold around the Amazon than before also becoming more immune to the various chemicals that had been used to kill them off initially.
That is just one example of why SA Contries dislike, the US, another one is that the US has a tendency to treat the SA Countries as if they were still third world Countries who operate a bit like they do in a Spaghetti Western.
South America has become very Industrialised and some SA Countries have lower levels of poverty than the US, and take exception to the arrogance shown by the US towards them.
Brazil for example is as advanced as the US if not more advanced in the standards of some of its medical care. For example Americans now travel to various SA Countries for elective surgery such as liposuction, breast enlargement, and obesity treatment.
For example did you know that one of the leading Opthalmic surgeons in the world works in Chile ?
There is thus a real crisis developing as far as the US and potentially the UK is concerned, hence the falling out over Libya, which the UK now sees as a potential ally in securing oil.
The French meanwhile have taken a very careful course not to upset anyone in the ME, which is why they have always been less than enthusiastic for the various embargos and sanctions, preferring instead to work secretly towards exclusive oil exploration and extraction deals, with regimes which every other member of NATO refuses to deal.
It is no surprise therefore to see the Guardian setting the scene for the inevitable increases in petrol that will have to occur in due course.
If they were actually free thinking they would have revealed that the oil crisis is not one of supplies as such, but one of two constituent parts.
The first is that much of the Middle East oil is in Countries which are either strongly Islamic or have strong Islamic leanings, and the US (and of course by association the UK) have managed to **** off with the way they are running around the Middle East defending the Israelis various human rights atrocities.
At the end of the day, Islamic brotherhood means more than any Nationalistic stance, and if and when push comes to shove brother will fall in line with brother against the Infidels.
The second is that the failure of some of the former Soviet Union Countries to benefit from the fall of Communism, coupled with the increasing power of former Communists, means that the previously secure oil sources in Eastern Europe, which were to replace reliance on the volatile Middle East, are now nowhere near as secure as they once were. Communism is making a comeback and once again the US and again by association, the UK) is seen as an aggressor.
The complete shambles that the US created in Iraq with their incompetent handling of the whole invasion scenario, including the dismemberment of the army and police left a power vacuum which allowed the Taliban to take hold of a Country they were previous forbidden (Saddam Hussein was their greatest ME enemy) and means that oil production can in no way be considered to be reliable.
So this leaves the US with a problem.
As I said earlier there are vast resources in Alaska and under Canada, as well as off the coast of Brazil. The first two are going to be very difficult to extract, and the US is not considered to be a real friend of any South American country, who prefer to look towards Europe and Asia rather than the US.
The US is particularly unpopular for its role in preventing the eradication of Malaria in South America. Basically in the 1930s all the South American countries most affected by Malaria (in particular Brazil) went to great lengths to actually eradicate the Mosquito population, so much so that they only existed in a small part of the south of the USA.
Realising that this would destroy a large market for their Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries the US refused to complete the eradication of the Mosquitos and they regained an even greater stronghold around the Amazon than before also becoming more immune to the various chemicals that had been used to kill them off initially.
That is just one example of why SA Contries dislike, the US, another one is that the US has a tendency to treat the SA Countries as if they were still third world Countries who operate a bit like they do in a Spaghetti Western.
South America has become very Industrialised and some SA Countries have lower levels of poverty than the US, and take exception to the arrogance shown by the US towards them.
Brazil for example is as advanced as the US if not more advanced in the standards of some of its medical care. For example Americans now travel to various SA Countries for elective surgery such as liposuction, breast enlargement, and obesity treatment.
For example did you know that one of the leading Opthalmic surgeons in the world works in Chile ?
There is thus a real crisis developing as far as the US and potentially the UK is concerned, hence the falling out over Libya, which the UK now sees as a potential ally in securing oil.
The French meanwhile have taken a very careful course not to upset anyone in the ME, which is why they have always been less than enthusiastic for the various embargos and sanctions, preferring instead to work secretly towards exclusive oil exploration and extraction deals, with regimes which every other member of NATO refuses to deal.
It is no surprise therefore to see the Guardian setting the scene for the inevitable increases in petrol that will have to occur in due course.
Chris125
Established Member
Before going off on rightwing rambles, do some research!
Peak Oil is NOT about running out of oil. Saying that there are big oil fields here and big oil fields there is completely missing the point.
Peak Oil is not the result of complicated science like Climate Change, its based on statistics and economics - supply and demand, basically. The former is on a downward trend, while the other is on an upward trend. Obviously when the demand outstrips the available supply the price will go up, and keep going up. This was discovered, much to their surprise, by the IEA who had been advising governments for years that it was nonsense.
Then they actually went and did the sums.. and discovered it would likely occur in the next decade. Oh dear!
Factor in the likely dishonesty of many oil-dependent countries (and oil companies) there's half a chance we've already passed it.
Chris
Peak Oil is NOT about running out of oil. Saying that there are big oil fields here and big oil fields there is completely missing the point.
Peak Oil is not the result of complicated science like Climate Change, its based on statistics and economics - supply and demand, basically. The former is on a downward trend, while the other is on an upward trend. Obviously when the demand outstrips the available supply the price will go up, and keep going up. This was discovered, much to their surprise, by the IEA who had been advising governments for years that it was nonsense.
Then they actually went and did the sums.. and discovered it would likely occur in the next decade. Oh dear!
Factor in the likely dishonesty of many oil-dependent countries (and oil companies) there's half a chance we've already passed it.
Chris
gordonthemoron
Established Member
Chris
Once India & China start using more cars than they do at present (they have a combined population in excess of 2 billion), there is going to be a significant shortage of petrol products
Once India & China start using more cars than they do at present (they have a combined population in excess of 2 billion), there is going to be a significant shortage of petrol products
Kneedown
Established Member
I'd hardly call the current incarnation of Conservative party "right wing", mores the pity.
Golden Gripper
Member
Well I think all major political parties are right wing; it all depends where you think the centre lies.
Swift-Deere
Member
id say all majer partys are too left wing but i can see what you mean as all the major parties are economicly right wing but socioly left wing
Technically the 3 main parties are neo-liberals, they all believe in markets, privitisation, trade liberalisation, internationalism and so on. There's not much difference between the three, they all believe in much the same but just differ on how to achieve it.
True left wing politics can only really now be found with the green party, but even that's a very watered down version. No political parties believe in a planned economy and most in light touch regulation. Most of our regulation is aimed at European block harmonisation, and you will get much the same whoever is in power.
However much neo-liberal policy has been junked after it was found that markets are not self correcting and people do not always work in their best interest. The market also seems incapable of dealing with the environment, long term infrastructure investment, sustainability, and social division.
I'm afraid its the same old problem, Homo sapien Mk1 is wired up a bit funny.
True left wing politics can only really now be found with the green party, but even that's a very watered down version. No political parties believe in a planned economy and most in light touch regulation. Most of our regulation is aimed at European block harmonisation, and you will get much the same whoever is in power.
However much neo-liberal policy has been junked after it was found that markets are not self correcting and people do not always work in their best interest. The market also seems incapable of dealing with the environment, long term infrastructure investment, sustainability, and social division.
I'm afraid its the same old problem, Homo sapien Mk1 is wired up a bit funny.
- Status