Temperatures went down during the Industrial age.

Yes pollution should reduced but I really don't see CO2 as much of problem, regardless of whether you are relgious or not, the Bible tells us all the bad things humans can do, some how global warming is not in there...

Is this just an excuse for making money?

At the time of the Bible there was only a handful of people around, and Henry Ford wasn't even a twinkle in God's eye.

If the government really cared about the enviroment and pollution, something would have been done about it by now, so obviously, they don't care. 'Global warming' is just another excuse to tax us without actually fixing the problem.

Interesting logic but failing to take into account spin ie Govts talking the talk but not walking the walk.

NuLabour has been far more interested in giving the impression they care but they were busy getting re-elected and taking away our rights.

Global Warming is definitely happening. The only debate (and there are few who oppose the idea) is that human activity is 'speeding the process up'. Regardless of Global Warming we still need to stop the levels of pollution, need to find energy alternatives, and to stop damaging the environment.

I can't help but feel that the government are just using this as another area to get votes. I want to see action and less talking about it. If Gordon Brown does make these changes then I'll be happily surprised.

Welcome Amberlina!


Exactly, this is the mature view of the GW issue - some of us here have been saying this for a while, but others seem determined to keep the pro/anti man-made GW debate going rather than taking the long view and thinking about ways to reduce and eventually end our addiction to fossil fuels. It is your generation that are going to suffer the consequences of both global warming and dwindling fossil fuel supplies, and it's good to see you on here giving us your perspective on these things.


Me too! Do you think we should build more nuclear power stations? What do you think is the best way to encourage everybody to reduce their energy use?

You see, I believe that to be the problem. How exactly can we reduce our energy use? The 'green, clean, alternatives' aren't cheap. We can't all afford hybrid cars and I've seen how ludicrous the prices of energy saving light bulbs are. I have excellent recycling facilities (tins, newspapers, paper, garden waste, glass are all collected with our refuse)- but not everybody does.

We need to encourage people to think about how their lifestyle affects the environment. Incentives? Maybe we do need them. But ultimately we need education on the matter. My parents generation harp on about how, "Global Warming is rubbish" but I'd rather not take my chances. When they're gone it's going to be me that suffers with the effects of their pollution.



This topic always makes me feel uneasy. On the one hand it's a seemingly wonderful idea. Efficient, no greenhouse gases, relatively little maintenance - what could be better? But on the other hand while catastrophes are unlikely (Chernobyl doesn't happen everyday, does it?) do we really know enough about the affects of the waste? What we deem safe today could be a hazard tomorrow. How are we going to dispose of this waste? There are only a limited number of disposal places... and we don't want it to result in polluting our groundwater.

Is nuclear an alternative to our fossil fuel worries? I really don't know. I'd be glad to hear of your opinions on the matter, however. :)

Some things I think the next or current government good do to stop pollution and regarding recycling:

-Stop recycling paper, does more damage than it tries to 'fix', trees aren't wasted, companies use tree farms, they grow, they cut, they regrow, simple, infinitely renewable.

-Recycle glass & metals & (possibly some?) plastics.

-Push for hydrogen cars.

-Stop using Depleted Uranium in ammunition, currently over 1500 tonnes have been used in iraq, over 300% more than in the previous Gulf War. Also puts crews health at risk.

-Make transport cheaper and stop making it expensive so we have to use cars, I believe the government has been pulling strings to keep transport prices up.



If the government wanted to, they could subsidise the companies and help get it going.

I think the important words there are, "wanted to". It seems the government don't want because I have seen little so far that leads me to believe they're really going to do something about the situation.



But they're actually making it more expensive to use cars! Haven't you seen the congestion charge and the idea of this 'green tax'? But if they're going to make using our cars unattractive, and harder to do, then they should improve public transport. Public transport needs to be safer, more efficient, cleaner and made more appealing. Maybe when that happens people might choose to use it.

They are cornering us, make transport expensive, people us cars, up the price of using a car, they make even more money.



Yes see, GW is just another excuse for a 'green tax' its just another buzz word like "terrorist(s)" and "9/11". GW is good for them because they can start a tax without even thinking about fixing the 'problem' because it really doesn't exist, however they replace "GW" with "pollution", they would have to start doing something about it.

I am currently only using transport until I get my driving license, just turned old enough to start learning to get one.

Transport is only bad at the moment if you have to travel more than 3 stops, thats what I've found, were I expect to get my next job is only 1 stop away, train every 10 minutes there and back because both stations are major ones. However thats not always the case and theres only 1 train an hour at some stations I've been to.

If transport was like it is in most of europe or better, it would criple oil sales in UK, angering the oil companies.

We are currently fighting for oil at the moment in the middle east, shows how much the government cares.

The need to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and the potential dangers of climate change considerably outweigh the risks associated with building new nuclear power stations. The downside of nuclear power has been greatly exaggerated by the anti-nuclear lobby. The mistakes and mis-management that led to the Chernobyl accident are extremely unlikely to be repeated, and modern reactors are inherently much safer than the old Soviet ones. Disposing of the waste is a worry I agree, but the risks are manageable. We should begin a major expansion of our nuclear capacity without delay, but at the same time we should be putting much more effort into other renewables such as (appropriately sited) wind, wave, tidal, solar, biomass etc so that we have a diverse, distributed energy supply that is not dependent on imports from potentially hostile states or vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And we must reduce energy consumption - we waste and misuse an obscenely large proportion of our energy resources.

I think the government is trying to lump all the blame on the people, it's not our fault, it is theres, Nuclear power stations aren't needed, Hydrogen power is sufficient but is being suppressed, it's like witg plastic bags, make them out of hemp, stronger than normal plastic and biodegradable.

Providor, you seem to have researched this more than anyone else on this forum and I've never read anything you've written as being anything other than balanced and thought out.

What is your opinion or knowledge of the hydrogen fuel cell as a power source for cars/buses etc.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Fuel_cell_cost

Is it an urban legend or fact that Henry Ford once said that he hoped mankind wouldn't wait until oil had run out to come up with a viable alternative?

As a passionate MGW is rubbish believer I have still to agree with everything providor says in his message 28/06/2007 21:33 about the use of resources.
We must try to get away from patterns established by historic accidents and vested interests.
Look for example at energy use for air conditioning. Absorptions refrigeration was killed for commercial reasons but lends itself to solar powered cooling, an application with demand directly proportional to energy requirement.
I am sure most people can think of other examples.
As to the cost of low energy light bulbs, having used them even when they were really expensive I found the overall cost was less than conventional bulbs because of their life expectancy and low energy levels.

But I don't really see anything but nuclear as an alternative - tidal, wind, solar.. they all depend on certain variables, do not produce enough energy and in their own way they all have effects on the environment.

Amber
I am rather a passionate believer that Nuclear Power Stations are absolutely the requirement.

As mentioned on other threads technology has advanced remarkably since the days of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl... and Chernobyl was bad management anyway.

Ming Campbell does not seem to know this and twice on "Question time" last night he used the N word as an accusation rather than as a potential salvation.

What surprized me was that no one else on the panel jumped down his throat explaining about advances since the 60's.. Do they not know? do they not understand?

France is virtually totally powered by Nuclear power and are the lowest CO2 emitter in Europe... and these things are largely trouble free if properly managed.

The technology is safe, clean and there are plenty of geologically stable places in the world where the limited waste can be buried encased in concrete and in very very deep. I just think of the Namib desert...

Furthermore many of these places are desolate and this would bring very welcome income to the regions.

I love the idea of free standing turbines in free flowing tidal flows..

But Tidal movement works on a 2 week cycle from springs, where there is a huge range, to neaps where the range is markedly less.

In addition anything immersed in sea water starts growing a beard immediately... Life under the ocean waves is vigourous, and will grow on the blades thus reducing their efficiency and is bound to get into the bearings, so I believe there will be huge maintenance costs.

I think there are still many problems to overcome before Tidal Turbines become economically viable.

And in that time why not go nuclear? It does worry me, yes, but I'm a still a firm believer that it is our only alternative at the present time.

Anybody watch 'No Waste Like Home' previously on BBC2 around two years ago? One house installed a solar panel. It stored up energy during the summer and provided heat all year round! I found it quite inspiring actually.

Are you talking about tidal turbines as in barrages, jonjii? I'd certainly like to see a proper trial of the estuary barrage idea. It's been talked about on the Solway and elsewhere since the 1960s.

Once upon a very long time ago I wrote a 3rd year dissertation on fuel cells, but since then I haven't paid much attention to them so my knowledge is limited to a few articles I've read in science and technology magazines. I doubt that we'll be seeing them in widespread use in vehicles in the very near future because of their cost and the problem of hydrogen supply. At the moment hydrogen production uses fossil fuel, so although hydrogen fuelled vehicles do not themselves emit any greenhouse gases, they are still emitted elsewhere, and in fact when you take into account the energy used to produce and compress and/or liquefy the hydrogen it looks pretty inefficient in terms of CO2 per mile. Burning coal to generate one megawatt-hour of electricity produces about 950kg of carbon dioxide. Using that 1MWh electricity to make hydrogen would produce enough for a fuel-cell car to travel about 1,000 miles. But driving the same distance in a 40mpg petrol-powered car would produce "only" 220kg of CO2.

Also hydrogen is not easy stuff to store and distribute, compared to petrol or diesel. But like a lot of low-carbon energy technologies, concern about climate change means that a lot of effort is going into R&D, and there seems to be a good prospect that the cost of hydrogen fuel cells will become competitive with internal combustion before too long. (I wouldn't be surprised if they appear first in lower power portable applications such as laptops and phones though.)

Likewise there is quite a bit of work going on in the field of hydrogen production and storage. One avenue of current research is looking at biological and chemical solar driven processes to produce hydrogen. Another sees potential in extracting hydrogen from sugar or starch at the point of use - imagine filling your tank with sugar syrup instead of petrol! If cost-effective low-carbon ways of producing and storing hydrogen can be developed it will make a huge difference to the economics and carbon efficiency of fuel cell vehicles.

However, in the short term I see hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as a bit of a distraction from the immediate need for car makers to take much stronger action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of the cars they produce right now, and to persuade consumers to demand lower-emission vehicles and stop buying models which are larger, heavier, more powerful and less efficient than they really need. (And also to stop driving them when they don't need to.)

Climate Change

I have thought about this issue and I believe that the government is being more than a tad disingenuous about this.

I think that there are in fact two issues here not one. They are:

• Climate change; climate change is happening. There must be very few people now who do not believe that. The question really is ‘is is us humans who are causing it?’ To answer this we need to look at the ‘evidence’ that is being trotted out by climatologists et al. Their predictions are based on changes in climate going back to the time records began, that is sometime in the 1640’s they also cite data found in ice cores going back 600,000 years. That is a little better but one must remember that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. In other words only .013% of the earth’s life, the blink of an eye. Very tenuous to say the least. On the other hand geologists and biologists have looked back in time over 3 billion years or a timeline of 67% of the life of the earth and found that this climate change has happened many, many times over the life cycle of the planet. The BBC, a few years ago, produced a very good series called ‘Earth Story’, which set out to show how the planet evolved over the years. It is very low key and very informative. It would appear from their research that 70 million years ago, when the dinosaurs roamed the earth the average temperature was much higher than it is today and there was, in fact, no ice fields on the planet at all. The last time the planet was as cool as it is today was approximately 300 hundred million years ago. We are still emerging from an ice age. In view of this it appears that the process of climate change under way at present cannot be stopped or reversed by anything that we do. With the possible exception of preserving the rain forests. What we should be doing, therefore, is formulating strategies to cope with climate change. On the other hand could you have faith in a school of thought which uses as a front man someone who does not even know what pollution is?
• Recycling; The planet’s resources are finite and need to be conserved if they are to last. Fossil fuels are running out at a great rate and new energy sources need t o be developed to replace them. At least though energy sources can be replaced, the depletion of mineral deposits, which cannot be replaced, is a much more worrying aspect. This makes recycling much more important than combating climate change and certainly much more emphasis should be placed on this. The two main alternative energy sources are hydro-electric and nuclear power. Both clean, but one very political. As for recycling; as long as the recycling industry, such as scrap-yards, are over regulated it is not worth recycling. Paper is another prime recycling target, but believe it or not, because people want pristine white paper it takes as much energy to produce recycled paper as it does to produce new paper. I actually put this diatribe to some ex army friends of mine and the responses were quite interesting. One friend worked in a glass making factory maintaining the glass making equipment. The furnaces were kept at a constant 1,400 degrees Celsius 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year no matter what was fed into them to make the glass, either sand or broken recycled glass. So there is no saving there and certainly, as silicon, in the form of sand, is one of the most common minerals on Earth, no saving of the planet’s resources. Something wrong there somewhere! The same applies to energy saving; government pays lip service to conservation, but actually does very little to lead by example.

So it can bee seen that the government, that has been bleating about energy conservation and recycling for years, has lumped the two issues together hoping to scare the population into complying with they demands. It would help if they led by example of course, but what can you expect from politicians.

Of course, if I wanted to be really cynical, I could say that the whole exercise is a way of increasing taxes.

Amberlina:



Hear hear!

Too many of these debates get sidetracked into "It's all man's fault" va "It's all natural"!

It doesn't matter, we're still using more energy and creating more pollution and we *need* to do something about that!

Hi Davidvic.


That is certainly an interesting question to consider, however since we clearly have an urgent need to reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuel use because they are running out and because it's not in our best interest to be dependent on energy imports from potentially hostile foreign countries, it's becoming an increasingly irrelevant question.

Climate change, as you rightly say, is happening, but it really doesn't matter whether we are to blame or not since the solutions to both man-made GW (if it exists) and dwindling fossil fuel supplies/lack of energy security are identical: reduce energy consumption, develop low-carbon energy sources and stop burning fossil fuels.

Nevertheless your comment is thoughtful and detailed and it raises some issues that I don't think we have covered on this forum before, so it deserves an appropriate response.


And also data found in quite a few other climate proxies like tree rings, sediments and corals


The data itself is hardly tenuous, it's actually quite robust and the various different CO2/temperature data sets are in quite good agreement with each other.


Indeed it has, and on every previous occasion when the climate has warmed it cannot possibly have been due to human activity because we weren't there. But that of itself is not evidence that we are not responsible this time.


And again in the Eocene, around 50 million years ago. But you have to remember that back then the planet was quite unlike it is now - the distribution of land surface was nothing like it is now, and the ocean circulation was completely different. When Australia and Antarctica were joined together and Europe, North America and Greenland formed a supercontinent, the warm equatorial currents could mix with the cooler polar waters, preventing ice formation and keeping global temperatures higher. Lack of ice albedo and release of CO2 from the oceans due to the higher temperatures would have been positive feedbacks which would have kept the temperatures high. It's also possible that higher ocean temperatures would have released vast quantities of methane from undersea calthrate deposits, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. There is evidence to suggest that the Arctic ice cap was only able to form after the closure of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago prevented the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans from mixing, increasing the salinity of the Atlantic and re-routing currents in both oceans, setting up the global ocean circulation pattern that we have today. Ocean circulation has a profound influence on global climate, so it is perhaps a little unwise to equate today's climate change with that of 50 or 70 million years ago when things were very different.


What is your source for that data? This graph seems to suggest that for most of the last 3 million years global average temperatures have been lower than they are today.


That may well be true, but I doubt that it can be inferred from previous climate changes, for the reasons given above.


This is rather wooly thinking! If you think we can stop or reverse climate change by not destroying the rain forests (and thereby preventing the increase in CO2 that will result if we do), then surely you are contradicting yourself by suggesting that any other action we might take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect?


Yes we should, because even if present-day GW was entirely due to human activities, and even if we stopped all human greenhouse gas emissions today, a significant increase in global average temperature and all the related climate effects are likely to happen anyway because of the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2 and other man-made GHGs.

So whether climate change is entirely natural, or all our fault, or as seems most likely a mixture of the two, we have to take the same actions, i.e. (1) stop using fossil fuels and (2) formulate strategies for coping with the effects of climate change. Which means that the whole debate over the causes of climate change, whilst academically interesting and important, is actually quite pointless in the context of what we should do about it.


Sorry you've lost me there - which school of thought and which front man are you talking about?

Providor



You've pinched my hobby horse :))

Hi Glynne.


Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery!

Thank you!!

Hi Providor

A couple of points on this thread'

Hydrogen Power; Research studies into Off Shore tidal energy recovery systems are looking at the possibility of generating and storing H2, then picking up by tankers. Cheaper installation and handling than cabling electricity ashore!

Major problem is storage systems, Bulk and vehicle.
This is a good site;

http://www.geocities.com/aardduck/fc_storage.html

As Otester said above this overview give the lowdown on current SOA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Fuel_cell_cost

One problem that is rarely mentioned is the very high combustion temp of H2, Clever metalurgy is expensive, short engine life! (Resource issue?) So fuel cells are the way forward.
Gas turbines because of high air rates don't have as severe temperature problems as ICE's.

We seem to be getting caught up spending large amounts of cash on systems that have serious engineering issues.
Carbon Capture is another non starter in Europe, efficiency drop too great for the system to be viable

Thanks Glynne, good links. Didn't know about the high combustion temp issue with H-fuelled internal combustion engines. I believe that there are also thermodynamic limitations on the efficiency of IC engines which don't apply to fuel cells, so I'm sure you're right that fuel cells are the most promising way to go for future transportation needs, so long as we can develop a hydrogen infrastructure that doesn't need fossil fuel inputs.


Just such a cock-up almost destroyed the embryonic UK arable biomass industry a few years ago. The industry was founded on the construction of an advanced biomass-only power station at Eggborough in Yorkshire (Project ARBRE). About 50 farmers took the plunge and between them planted around 1500 hectares of short-rotation coppice willow to fuel the ARBRE station, funded by the government's Energy Crops Scheme. The govt insisted that the ARBRE station must use a high-efficiency combustion system using a fluidised bed and gasification, rather than a straightforward tried-and-tested, but less efficient, conventional combustion design. Unfortunately the ARBRE plant had severe technical problems and went bust before it had generated a single kW of useful electricity, leaving all the willow growers in the lurch without a market for their new crop.

Although they were initially not out-of-pocket because ECS grant had covered the cost of planting, they couldn't pull the willow up and revert to conventional cropping because MAFF (now DEFRA) would have made them pay back the grant if they did. Developing a new market took almost 3 years, during which time the govt had several more goes at shooting energy crops in the foot, and in the meantime there was no income from the crop so (not surprisingly) it made other farmers extremely wary of investing in energy crops.

So now we're in the sad situation that there is a large and rapidly expanding market for energy crops, principally for co-firing at coal power stations like Drax, but getting once-bitten-twice-shy farmers to commit the huge acreage necessary to supply them is very difficult. To make things even worse, there is a large area of suitable farmland right on the doorstep of Drax power station where farmers want to take advantage of Drax contracts but DEFRA and the local authority will not allow energy crops to be planted at all because they think they will spoil the view! So much for "climate change is the most serious problem we face today" as Blair and Miliband have repeatedly told us! I wonder if Gordon Brown and Hilary Benn will take a more pragmatic view when renewable energy production comes into conflict with landscape and amenity issues?

Hi Provider

Yes there is a thermodynamic limitation on IC engines -
These are heat engines and have a maximum theroretical efficiency of 60% but only achieve 30-40%.

Petrol engines operate on the thermodynamic Otto Cycle.
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~allan/thermo/page5/page5.html

Diesels design basis for for his compression ignition engine was to get as close as possible to the maximum theroretical efficiency for a heat engine, by using very high compression ratios.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/diesel.html
In practice these are generally 5-10% more efficient than petrol engines.

Fuel cells are electro chemical so conversion efficiencies are very high up to 80%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency
(I'm going to have to check this I have a gut feeling the theoretical efficiency should be closer to 98%)

I am a little concerned that Biofuel production, is set up such that it does not interfere with food production.
In addition to concerns over the ecological issues such as forest clearance.

I also think that biofuel is too valuable to be wasted in large scale power generation there are other more appropriate fuels.
Biofuel should generally be used for transport.

OK small scale systems fueled with wood chip % waste are fair enough but I think you'll get my point

As energy becomes more expensive, as it appears it will, the UK is going to have to rely on home production to feed itself.

During WW2 with a population of about 40 Million we had great difficulty, with our population approaching 70 million we will need to up our game.

One of my problems with the EU CAP and recent British governments, is the destruction of, and lack of interest in agriculture.

The vision seems to be of the countryside as a playground, not a vital resource to feed the people.

I really think we need to get our act together, start planning an overall stratagy based on current technology.
(I regard tidal energy as current technology!)

Glynne, Providor

Good debate!
The main issue is that the government have got their act together now and are implementing it.

Sorry Liz

They haven't!!

Under the EWP;
Lot of good stuff, and on the surface it looks good.

But

The priorities are wrong.

Vast sums are being poured into unrealistic projects.

Setting up systems like Carbon Trading are merely providing an opportunity for entrepreneurs to make a killing - rather than investing in solutions.

Grant systems tied to people on benifits mean that majorities miss out. Its a political look good scam not an assault on inefficiency.

We need structural change. Taxation Rationing etc. trim behaviour don't change realities.

We need to get some feet on the ground engineers looking at the problem, not some wild eyed member of green peace who thinks a gas powered CCG is bad news, and Nuclear the end of the world.

Glynne
Sorry perhaps I was not clear enough. As I see it they have an act together and,looking at future meetings and the agendas, are/will implement it so far as renewable energy in particular onshore wind is concerned.
I do agree their priorities in general are wrong.


So is the ROC scam which we pay for.

Missing out*, one of my blogs on the other site was eclipsed by ........!

Economy is overshadowing environment and social issues.
BARKER,STERN, EDDINGTON ETC ARE ALL REPORTS BY ECONOMISTS AND BROWN IS BACKING THEM.

Believe we are on the same wave length in many things or as a japanese friend once said on the same FM !"

Must go back to fighting BIG BROTHER and the Draconian Planning system.
Happy to correspond through PM

Meanwhile a snippet before Brown became Prime Minister.

'Gordon Brown, prime minister in waiting, has set his sights on London firmly establishing itself as the global market centre for carbon trading permits, predicting that the business could be worth €50bn-€100bn (£33.8bn-£67.6bn) over time.
The market has its base in the carrot and stick approach to emissions linked to meeting targets set under the terms of the Kyoto agreement'.

Comment . A sack of carrots and a matchstick

This was on the BBC News site this morning. It cites "... recent warnings from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization that some biofuels produce hardly any carbon savings at all." and quotes the UK government's climate envoy John Ashton: "The policy on biofuels is currently running ahead of the science."

I initially thought that replacing petrol and diesel with biofuels was a good idea, but now I'm becoming deeply concerned about them. Energy crops such as willow, used for heat and electricity generation, are a different matter because they require relatively little in the way of fertilizer and pesticides and their net energy yield per hectare is much greater, not least because they don't require anywhere near as much processing as biofuel crops. Nevertheless I've always thought that burning energy crops in large, inefficient coal power stations is very wasteful and I would much rather see them going into smaller-scale distributed heat and power units or even individual domestic boilers where they can be utilised at 80% efficiency or more.


That's exactly what's going on in the case I referred to earlier - the local authority and English Heritage have invented a special "designation" to "protect" the landscape and DEFRA now consider that preserving the appearance of the landscape is more important than growing energy crops. They'd rather see Drax importing biomass from overseas than let local farmers grow it in this particular area.* We're not talking about massive visual impact either, just crops that for part of the year grow somewhat taller than conventional crops.

*(I should perhaps declare an interest now that this topic has come up - I am connected with a farm that grows energy crops and is one of those affected by this restriction, and also I'm planning to install a woodchip boiler to heat my house.)

Hi Providor

Heat my house with two wood burning stoves,(Morso Squirrels) and a couple of economy 7 tariff, electric night storage heaters. Water heating by night electric (want to go solar for that but expensive)
Wood is partly bought in, from a managed source, partly from local fallen trees etc.
Swinging an axe on a frosty winter morning is idyllic.

Biofuels - Thank you for that link I missed that. It provides evidence for my purely speculative view.

Small scale CHP or CCG can be run on methane from sewage digesters, capped landfill,or fed with combustible manufacturing waste, or some household rubbish.
A study into Nationally sourcing fuel and site location for these units would be worth while.
I can't understand why the water companies are not looking at putting more of these into sewage farms.

There is a real problem finding a heat sink for the heat produced from a CHP unit. The higher the heat outlet temperature the lower the generator output, the lower the temperature the more difficult it is to use the heat.

Area heating is a great idea, but retrofitting difficult and expensive, and as home efficiencies improve, less needed.

I think CCG to subdew is generally a good way forward but it all depends on the how the system is integrated into the host.

As for English Heritage, Defra, (I'm going to add) The Ramblers, they all seem to be run by urban warriors with almost no idea of what actually goes on in the countryside.
They see;
Private ownership of the countryside as wrong.
Farmers are nuisances improperly getting in the way of what they want to do.
Restrictions because of crops or livestock are ignored, damage doesn't matter. After all its countryside to their mind they can do what they like.

We have an unused (in living memory)footpath across a farm yard. A local rambler has discovered it by going through old council records and is now fighting to get it opened.
He has no public support, the footpath will serve no purpose.
It goes from nowhere to nowhere. The links are extinguished
But because of the Law he is likely to get it open.

The cost will be high to the local council.
Because of the route, the impact on the farm is such that major reorganisation at high cost will be required.

Hi Liz
Yes I think we are, if not on the same FM, at least dancing to the same tune.

Bean counters, unlike scientists produce the report the master wants.

The economists say what is required by government, but the ideas are from the groups who while knowledgeable about ecology protest. Are certainly not knowledgeable in the area of system efficiency and energy systems.

Nor it seems do they have any idea of the impact energy shortage will have on this country.

Discussing biofuels providor points out the government is imposing some really stupid restrictions.
What is worse the grant catch 22 he points out;

There seems to be no coherent overall idea or plan.

If we are going to help the public with grants, then do it - target the problem.

Nibyism is a good thing - it is the people of the community who must have the say, not some remote Council Officer working to a rule book written even further away advising Councillors who must not research the issue on pain of being refused to take part in the decision.


However Liz there are some areas we disagree;

I think suitably located wind generation is a good thing, and the failure of early installations to meet output targets is not a big deal.

Also despite what I said above about nibyism.
I believe there are cases where strategic structural development should be imposed.
The LNG line across Wales is a case in point.

;
Perhaps less than you think



The right renewables in the right place is CPRE remit
The recent installations are those that worry me
The LNG line I know only a little about so cannot comment

While researching something entirely different - I came across this book.

"Mark Lynas’ Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet is published by Fourth Estate".

an overview is here

“The notion of nature as fragile owes more to the anxious zeitgeist than climate realities” (Josie Appleton)

One comment I liked was
Some interesting stuff on French approach to energy use and lessons to be learned.

You global warming warriors - on both sides - will get something out of this!

If the bean counters can direct money from a project they deem not the best value then the scientists can only produce the report the bean counters like. The bean counters are controlled by their political masters so there is not difference in the reliability of either source. I have seen this in action so I know it is true. All one can say is that scientists study their blinkered view accurately which is not the same as saying they are unbiassed.

Roverdc
Exactly,which is why there is no real balance.