[Commuting by train cost me £90 a month. The trains are always late and they stink. But at least I keep my car off the roads. And if in 10 years I feel it's time to give up biking because the situation is getting worse and worse, then I'll do it.]

Are trains that fuel effeceint they use huge amounts of fossilfuels even when there empty even if all the trains were stationary the network is still using electricity.
95% of the time there passenger free its only at peek time that the cost/mile equals out in co2 emmisions compared to other forms of transport.

What amazes me is it's like the coversion to a veggy they probably eaten and worn half a dozen cows in their life time and all of a sudden after their conversion everyone else is a murderer its funny weve all been to school got a job raised a family, worked were weve had to not all ways by choice then someone like 749R comes along and your a planet destroyer.
I didnt wake up one morning and say today I'm going to produce as much CO2 as I can to **** the planet.
I live in a Capatalist society like everyone who resides in this country and most choices are made for me whether I like it or not.
I'd rather put my efforts to keeping my local hospital open/getting proper retirement care for my father/not having to worry if my daughter is going to get home safe from a night out/Being able to walk through my town centre without getting your head stoved in.
these are the real tangible issues that effect my life now not some computer analysis that is based on what ever is thrown in to get the figures that they need.
heres one
Police have said that a 100% of drivers caught speeding were doing over a 100 mph big headlines public outrage govern all cars to 70mph la de da.
in the small print number of cars caught speeding 1.
you can make anything sound as bad as you like as long as you manipulate the figures to suit your needs or as good.
unemployment
immigration
hospital waiting times
appointments at the doctors
weapons of mass destruction is a good one where are they, I thought Saddam could unlesh destruction in 10 minutes on us.
All politicians will tell you anything and back it up with stats to do what they want that suits them at the time.
statistics there meaningless your either affected or not,thats the big gamble of life to be in the right place at the right time or in the wrong place and who can tell where that is.

I'm sure the old British trains must not be very fuel efficient. But I don't think they use more fuel whether I'm on them or not.


I think you missed the point here. I didn't say trains were environnemtaly friendly. To me the ONLY advantage (from an environnemental point of view) to commuting by train is to keep my car off the road. Each day I take a train, I'm not using my car for one hour.

Ask a metrologist what they think of global warming......most will say that global warming is a cyclical event that has been going on since creation, and the rate of warming that we are experiencing has been seen several times in both recent and distant past.

One important thing to understand, and most people are ignorant of this fact (I'm not accusing you of this Jools); Global warming causes CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around as most people believe.

Just my 2p worth....

Flamesuit on.

J

Yes I am still alive.......hurrah.

PS Ruth I still owe you some cash - sorry.

[quote=Tonio600]I'm sure the old British trains must not be very fuel efficient. But I don't think they use more fuel whether I'm on them or not.


Sorry but thats my point when the trains are empty they may well use similiar consumption but unlike a car when its empty its using no fuel at all and unless you are within walking distance of a station you have to get either a taxi or bus both Co2 producers and here lies the fundamental issue we cannot just sit indoors and die.

Oh DEAR I'am a Heretic and must be burnt at the stake for Breathing out Co2 hold on burning produces
Co2

Oh and when they have those big lets save the planet conventions how do they get there Tardis I think not Gas guzzling planes,and anyway 2Jags is your average Politician and they wont be giving any of their perks up even if they make us and tax us while were doing it.

I dont believe I have called anyone a planet destroyer. I have pointed out that global warming exists and that most scientists believe it is down to green house gasses created by man.

I have also stated that polluters should take responsibilty and pay to clean it up. I dont mind me or anyone else making a mess as long as individuall or collectively we pay to clean it up. That is only fair for the coming generations.

I challenged opinions on the aesthetics of pylons and sea levels by asking questions.

At no time have I labelled anyone, except by implication George W Bush, a planet destroyer.

Only kidding 749er no need to throw the toys at me,I was just making a point that newly converted disciples of what ever religion non smoking converts vegetarians etc seem to get on their high horse and start preaching as though they've been champions for the cause for life when in reality it was yesterday.
your point about the scottish isles just didnt add up if the islands are 100%likely to be under water why build a wind farm there its just that sort of twisted logic I cant get my head round, that wind farm will make no negligable impact to the total Co2 emmisions but will destroy a beautifull island you cant justify one lot of vandilism with another.

I'm within a walking distance of the stations.
And the bl00dy trains are running anyway, with me or not with me. So my point is that by not using my car, I don't add to the train polution with my car's polution.

Anyway, I've got a train to catch and I'm late already. Time to run :D

I seem to be one few people that actually LIKE the look of wind farms. I work near the Mohne valley (where the Dambusters did their thing) and the hills are covered in wind turbines. They don't detract from the beauty of the valley anymore than the houses and hotels do. IMHO.

Read somewhere that trains are the most environmentally friendly form of transport, but the figures didn't give any indication of how full the train had to be to achieve this. Better per passenger than car or plane.

Shame the UK network is sh17e then isn't it:D Beeching saw to that.

I'd use the train for work if it cost a tenner a week and it set off when I was ready to go!
The car or bike have fixed costs that rack up even if they don't get used for work, so I might as well make some use of them. Maybe thats why pay per mile is gonna finally kill off use of the roads, the (variable) costs are more directly related to how many miles ya do.

At the mo' the fixed stuff like insurance, road tax, MOT, and that great umentionable depreciation make a fuel costs (the variable cost) seem cheap to me??

Well impressed by the Swiss train system, well integrated with air and bus and runs like clockwork.

Two Jags integrated transport policy just didn't happen, another opportunity lost.

Ray.

sorry if I sound stroppy, got a lot going on just now. The 9m rise is a possibilty, some models predict a rise of 1m, depends who you believe. This is part of the problem. Most people know something is happening and its not good, its a question of how bad might it be and might it be tolerable?

But interestingly there is a debate going on, on one of the western isles just now as to whether a huge wind farm should be built. One side says its a blot on the landscape the other side says the world needs to act and since the island is part of the world it should have the farm, otherwise no more islands. Perhaps the best place is offshore?

I can appreciate where the opposition are coming from, but personally, I am with Martini. I think the are very graceful objects and I think they represent something clean and positive.

They'd be very good at adding character to the Crouch and Blackwater valleys ;)

+1 ...

Yer a real asthetic addition to countryside and the same people get the hump when Prescot sanctions the building of millions of new homes.
sorry no excuse for blotting any landscape vandalism is vandalism regardless of the benefits.
As for pylons how are they going to get the eletricity off the island and too the grid more blotts.
To achieve the same output the whole of the country would be covered end to end total madness its knee jerk reaction to a problem that ministers have'nt planned for.
I've never had criminal intent but if lived on those islands i'd sabotage as many as i could.
small community crushed by big business at the end of the day,green is not always good.

Good Debate
 

I don't belong to any environmental groups nor am I an eco activist - I also do not have any interests in the rail industry. Now that's clear I'd just like to thank everyone for holding this very good debate - most interesting.

I'd just like to say that the human race is killing the planet and for those with an open mind, ears and eyes will see the truth. The Al Gore docufilm is as good a place as any to start.

As for trains - they are the most fuel efficient way presently of transporting both people and frieght quickly. There are many independent studies out there that consistently validate this.

Now wouldn't it be great for Ducati to become the first bike manufacturer to have a hybrid fuel highly competitive GP race n road sports n touring bike, and, for Ducati to distribute their bike from factory to individual markets by rail.

From little acorns they say but when councils start prosecuting people for stupid mistakes when recylcing and start charging more money to take away refuse that they already pay towards in the council tax and then start putting cameras at tips and chips in bins its going to total alienate the very people that could make a difference.
All this heavy handyness is going to do is increase resentment and give most people the impression that enviromental issues are just another excuse to raise tax revenues.
2007 will be the year of the flytipper and if we cant get hygenic refuse collection under controll what chance have you with Global warming.

And conventional or nuclear power stations are NOT blots on the landscape?

Attachment 2380

Given a choice, I'd rather look out on a valley dotted with wind turbines than a valley with a bl**dy great coal-fired power station in it!

Wind and wave power generation sited offshore seems to be the current favourite (and by offshore I mean IN THE SEA, similar to oil and gas platforms) as this gives access to the power needed and has less visual impact (higher costs and almost as high environmental impact, tho).

The truth is, until we find a source of power better than electricity we are stuck with electrical power generation in one form or another.

Renewable energy could only ever produce a fraction of our electricity needs, but even 30% of our requirements produced by low-pollution means is better than none.

And if anyone says that wind or wave is non-polluting, they've got that wrong. Both require vast amounts of concrete, steel, plastics, lead and copper and they don't get produced without polluting by-products.

Never said that power stations or any other forms of industrial use are not blots.
wind turbines as objects of beauty stick them in the Tate Modern with the pickled animals and piles of bricks then not on natural vistas.
the reasons there are oil rigs in the sea is because of the huge profits outway the collossal start-up costs and maintenance.
wind turbines will not even cover the start-up costs and theres another problem if your supplying 30% you need at least 50% more output to cover for no wind and maintenance which means you could have built Nuclear power stations on existing sites at similair costs.
anyone who thinks that the enviromental impact of building and installing tens of thousands of turbines on land or in the sea is going to cause less damage than any other form of industrail intervention is living in cloud cuckoo land
Why has Nuclear power got such a stigma is it the relationship with Nuclear weapons, I dont know the figures of people killed by these bombs but I,am sure the common car has killed more people in a year and every year.
how many have been killed in Iraq just with common and garden gun I think weve lost all sense of perspective.
pollution is just that "Argh but this is green pollution it doesnt count"
sorry but in my view you will never catch up with demand because of the expansion of the worlds population and 30% of todays consumption will be 5% by tomorrow and the shortfall will eventually have to be filled with something practical and in the short term it will be Nuclear but in the longterm they may find something completely new.
But it wont be wind farms there just a gimick to show everyone that the government are doing something just like sticking fuel tax up for flying.
there is no excuse for saying "But lets just do something" when they do that you get things that go horribly wrong,the dangerous dogs act and the gun laws all show the way it goes when you have a Knee-jerk reaction they dont protect anyone.

And no sorry I dont know the answer but for me its not fields of Turbines

Am not sure where you get your facts from but from way back when i was studying all this at Uni

Wave power costs 6p/kWh (revised from 9p/kWh)
Nuclear costs 6p/kWh - excludes decommissioning costs
Wind costs 11p/kWh
Hydro- cheap as chips
Fossil fuels are no longer an option

No one knows what it costs to decommission a nuclear power station as no one has done it. They are left as radioactive tombs for thousands of years, unless we do the right thing and deal with them. But it will cost more to decommission than to will to build.

People should be scared of nuclear installations. We built a fast breeder reactor at Dounray. It was an experiment in producing power from a new type of reactor which tool spent nuclear fuel and handily enough turned into plutonium. It didnt work so we built THORP instead. Another idea, so great that no one else in the world has followed suit. The fast breeder was cooled by liquid sodium. Never in the history of man has man succeeded in putting out a fire fueled by liquid sodium. What on earth were we doing? Seriously! No wonder the locals, and the scandanavians were not happy.

Power consumption will decrease. The UK Building Regulations are a legal document. They must be complied with. For the next 50 years they will revised so that the energy performance of buildings improves by 27% every 5 years. The first tranche came in last year. It applies to new build and refurb. Homes are also covered by this. Businesses can take advantage of tax breaks and interest free loans to fund energy efficient technology. I know firms who have had there money back in less than 2 years. Its a great business investment for them. This is an EEC directive and is part of our commitments to Kyoto. If everyone signed up we would be off with our knees up! But you cant influence, say the USA, if you are not excercising good practice yourself.

A wave barrage the length of the western isles could power most of Scotland.

Australia and Denmark generate 20% of their power from wind.

Lastly, ask yourself, how would you feel if they wanted to build a nuclear power station where you lived?

Will power consumption really decrease? Maybe it will grow at a lower rate, but actually decrease? I find that one doubtful.. The growth in everything electrical is never-ending, new buildings all have fancy HVAC systems which the older ones don't. I'm not convinced UK power consumption will be reduced, and for the developing world it is only going to rise.

It will decrease.All manufacturers are looking to reduce the consumtion of their goods, changing from a CRT screen to an LCD screen saves about 90%.

The building design process is a little complicated. But it involves a mathematical model which determines what the consumption of the building would be pre 2006. You then have a target which at the moment has to be 28% lower than the old building design. All elements of the building are included HVAC, Lighting (my field), fenestration, insulation, domestic hot water etc. if your building does not comply it does not get a completion certificate from building control so no one can use it. Buildings must all be metered and will have an energy label assigned to them in the same way cars and fridges etc. So if you are paying X to lease an A rated building and it performs like a C rated building, then I suspect the lawyers will get involved.

But its sfae to say that most of the lighting put into commerial buildings has been absolutely **** in terms of energy efficieny. The technology has always been there to do 100% better in many cases, than has been done in the past. So at least these regs will eliminate the dross from the market place and encourage efficient design