Greenpeace take over a coal train in Nottinghamshire

[tbtommyb]

the reference to a popular slogan of the 80s and early 90s passed you by then.

Er no? But it has no relevance apart from containing the word 'coal' so it a bit pointless.

Unless you were just making a pithy witticism, in which case full steam ahead

 

[tbtommyb]

I could accuse you of not knowing much about the endocrine physiology of cetaceans but that wouldn't really be relevant either.

But Pickman knows *fucking loads* about cetacean physiology

 

[StoneRoad]

At least they are mucking about off the main network, in some access sidings ................... still trespassing.
And "modern" coal-fired power stations in the UK are supposed to do less environmental damage than deforestation etc on the other-side of the world. (Open cast holes could be filled in with the non-recylable detritus of modern society - perhaps the flyash from power stations and incinerators - just a thought)

 

[Pickman's model]

But Pickman knows *fucking loads* about cetacean physiology

yeh but i don't like to blow my own trumpet

 

[Pickman's model]

Back in the 80's a profitable coal industry was artificially dismantled by the government. Now a failing coal industry is being artificially propped up by the government. Resurrecting slogans from the 80's in lieu of actually looking at the current situation is not helpful.

it was a witticism you humourless sod

 

[SpookyFrank]

it was a witticism you humourless sod

One which you followed up with some snippy remark about how ill-informed we all are.

 

[Buckaroo]

One which you followed up with some snippy remark about how ill-informed we all are.

tbf one which you followed up with a graph.

 

[SpookyFrank]

At least they are mucking about off the main network, in some access sidings ................... still trespassing.
And "modern" coal-fired power stations in the UK are supposed to do less environmental damage than deforestation etc on the other-side of the world. (Open cast holes could be filled in with the non-recylable detritus of modern society - perhaps the flyash from power stations and incinerators - just a thought)

Brilliant stuff.

'We're not wrecking the environment, we fill in all the big holes we dig with garbage!'

Trouble is they'll often sell off the land on top of a former open cast site for housing developments. Coal mining is a good way to turn greenfield land into 'post-industrial' brownfield land.

Building houses on top of what is basically a landfill site is not a great idea from an engineering point of view.

 

[SpookyFrank]

well we've got a new nuclear reactor planned for the existing hinkley site, so we'll not need the coal.

a bod in the paper called it a 'nuclear renaissance'

But we will need Uranium, and the world doesn't have an endless supply of that either.

Then there's the need to reconcile the placement of nuclear power stations on coastlines with the fact that sea levels are rising. Hinkley's location is perfect for causing the biggest possible shitstorm if flooding were to breach the reactor, what with several Major cities nearby (Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol) and the huge tidal range of the Severn estuary. The convenient placement of the oft-flooded Somerset levels nearby would also allow such an event to carry radioactive material many miles inland. I'm sure this could never happen though, it's not as if we're handing out contracts for building and running new nuclear power plants to the lowest bidder or anything.

 

[Pickman's model]

One which you followed up with some snippy remark about how ill-informed we all are.

no, i said i'd assumed a level of knowledge SOME people here don't have. of course you may not know the difference between some and all. but i'd like to think you do.

 

[DotCommunist]

But we will need Uranium, and the world doesn't have an endless supply of that either.

Then there's the need to reconcile the placement of nuclear power stations on coastlines with the fact that sea levels are rising. Hinkley's location is perfect for causing the biggest possible shitstorm if flooding were to breach the reactor, what with several Major cities nearby (Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol) and the huge tidal range of the Severn estuary. The convenient placement of the oft-flooded Somerset levels nearby would also allow such an event to carry radioactive material many miles inland. I'm sure this could never happen though, it's not as if we're handing out contracts for building and running new nuclear power plants to the lowest bidder or anything.

EDF in this case. And there has already been financial skullduggery

 

[SikhWarrioR]

Wonder how many of those Greenpeace idiots have got such things as "Posession master" "Protection master" "Lookout" or any other form of track access licences for a start then how did they stop the train hopefully not by interfering with the signaling Then there is the act of trespass on the Railway. Normally i have respect for Greenpeace but as a Railway Engineering Professional of nearly 3 decades and having helped clear up or investigate "one unders" pulling stunts like that
Greenpeace are just a bunch of stupid fuckchuzzles

 

[SpookyFrank]

Wonder how many of those Greenpeace idiots have got such things as "Posession master" "Protection master" "Lookout" or any other form of track access licences for a start then how did they stop the train hopefully not by interfering with the signaling Then there is the act of trespass on the Railway. Normally i have respect for Greenpeace but as a Railway Engineering Professional of nearly 3 decades and having helped clear up or investigate "one unders" pulling stunts like that
Greenpeace are just a bunch of stupid fuckchuzzles

Their twitter feed is over there ----------->

I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear from you.

I suspect it's possible that unchecked consumption of fossil fuels may, in the fullness of time, cause rather more inconvenience for rather more people than this action has. I'm not saying what they're doing is gonna stop global warming but if you have a better idea of how we should do that, without inconveniencing a single living soul obviously, then do please let us know.

 

[Buckaroo]

Their twitter feed is over there ----------->

I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear from you.

I suspect it's possible that unchecked consumption of fossil fuels may, in the fullness of time, cause rather more inconvenience for rather more people than this action has. I'm not saying what they're doing is gonna stop global warming but if you have a better idea of how we should do that, without inconveniencing a single living soul obviously, then do please let us know.

A radical change in structure and the use of resources and all that jazz. The fuckchuzzles did a thing but in a way it's still part of the thing, it's assimilated into it if that's the right word.

 

[SpookyFrank]

A radical change in structure and the use of resources and all that jazz. The fuckchuzzles did a thing but in a way it's still part of the thing, it's assimilated into it if that's the right word.

So then we're all doomed. Believe me, this has occurred to me and every other eco-activist type person many times. Some people have obviously decided that, considering that if we're already doomed we don't have much to lose, it's worth having a go on the off chance it gets us somewhere.

Personally, I'm in one of my 'we're all doomed so why bother?' phases. But I admire those who aren't.

 

[Buckaroo]

So then we're all doomed. Believe me, this has occurred to me and every other eco-activist type person many times. Some people have obviously decided that, considering that if we're already doomed we don't have much to lose, it's worth having a go on the off chance it gets us somewhere.

Personally, I'm in one of my 'we're all doomed so why bother?' phases. But I admire those who aren't.

Prole not coal!

 

[Flavour]

I for one support these actions. It has brought my attention to some things I did not know. Thank you, Greenpeace!

 

[Buckaroo]

I for one support these actions. It has brought my attention to some things I did not know. Thank you, Greenpeace!

What did you learn that you didn't know already?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What did you learn that you didn't know already?

Personally I learnt that a train was stopped. YMMV

 

[SpookyFrank]

What did you learn that you didn't know already?

Before people do stuff like this they always do their homework and make sure there's a clear message.

I'm not sure why, but it always seems necessary for a bunch of people to do some silly stunt and get themselves arrested in order to get a message in the newspapers. Unless the message is, 'immigrants are ruining this country' or something, in which case the papers are most likely printing it already.

It might seem like we've heard all this climate change stuff before, but where did we hear it from? If you stop and think about it, protests and direct action have actually played a pretty big role, to the point where mainstream politicians (or some of them) are finally starting to realise that there might actually be some mileage in this whole 'averting armageddon' thing the hippies keep going on about.

Of course some of those politicians will then get some fossil fuel magnate whispering in their ears, after which they'll announce that the solution to climate change caused by burning fossil fuels is to extract more gas from the ground by pumping millions of gallons of perfectly good drinking water mixed with some secret recipe ACME brand carcinogenic sludge into the bedrock that's got all our houses and pubs and stuff on top of it. Then it's back to the drawing board for us hippies and we have to do yet more silly things and spend yet more time in police cells and have yet more polyester-trousered livestock breaking into our homes and going through our stuff; all just for the chance to point out a few more bitesize chunks of the bleeding obvious.

 

[tbtommyb]

The tories are actually legislating to limit the output of renewables like wind in the UK. In so doing they're reducing the chances of jobs being created in that industry, jobs which won't vanish when a mine dries up or the coal company finally goes bankrupt.

Are they? Source?

 

[tbtommyb]

it's amusing to read the comments on Greenpeace's facebook about this, where all the railway spods are getting angry about them breaking railway byelaw 134(c)(iii) or whatever.

personally i think they should push the benefits of demand reduction, but whatever.

 

[NoXion]

But we will need Uranium, and the world doesn't have an endless supply of that either.

It doesn't have to be "endless", that's a ridiculous requirement that not even "renewable" energy can satisfy, since the Sun won't last forever. However, if it lasts long enough, say up to a billion years or more, then I think that's long enough for the foreseeable future.

Even if a billion years is too optimistic, reduce that by six orders of magnitude and that's still energy to last us a thousand years, not including thorium which is 3 to 4 times as abundant in the Earth's crust as uranium, and which can also be used as a fuel.

Nuclear fission is just as worthy of consideration as renewables with regards to the future of energy production.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Are they? Source?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/04/conservatives-promise-ban-new-onshore-windfarms

Not actually legislation as yet. I did see something about the tories planning to limit even the output of existing onshore wind farms but I'm struggling to find it.

Plenty of tory backbenchers seem to loathe onshore wind farms, and Cameron has been under pressure to come up with something to appease them.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It doesn't have to be "endless", that's a ridiculous requirement that not even "renewable" energy can satisfy, since the Sun won't last forever. However, if it lasts long enough, say up to a billion years or more, then I think that's long enough for the foreseeable future.

Even if a billion years is too optimistic, reduce that by six orders of magnitude and that's still energy to last us a thousand years, not including thorium which is 3 to 4 times as abundant in the Earth's crust as uranium, and which can also be used as a fuel.

Nuclear fission is just as worthy of consideration as renewables with regards to the future of energy production.

This article seems to suggest that we've got enough Uranium for about 85 years:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2006/uranium_resources.html

Naturally, the more nuclear power plants we build the more uranium we'll get through. But I'm more concerned about the fact we still don't know what to do with the nuclear waste we've already produced, never mind the waste from another century of nuclear power.

 

[SpookyFrank]

personally i think they should push the benefits of demand reduction, but whatever.

Demand reduction doesn't get mentioned a lot, not because it's not an important idea but because capitalism simply doesn't allow for it. It's also quite powerful to say that we don't need to do without anything, that we can meet existing demands with renewable energy using technology that already exists, coupled with improved energy efficiency.

 

[coley]

so greenpeace position is dole not coal for miners.

Most coal is imported usually American, being dumped on the market, very few people involved in British coal production these days.

 

[coley]

Maybe deforestation of the Brazilian rain forest or China's carbon usage have a lesser current impact than I thought!
Maybe next time they could try to take over a train carrying spent uranium fuel rods.
I am am sure the stuffed polar bear would be doing a facepalm if it could.

Now if they were doing this in China or India.......?

 

[tbtommyb]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/04/conservatives-promise-ban-new-onshore-windfarms

Not actually legislation as yet. I did see something about the tories planning to limit even the output of existing onshore wind farms but I'm struggling to find it.

Plenty of tory backbenchers seem to loathe onshore wind farms, and Cameron has been under pressure to come up with something to appease them.

ok, well a post-election pledge limiting onshore wind is quite different to legislating against renewables but i see your broader point. though i think the business opportunities of renewables are being recognised more so it's simplistic to say that capitalists will favour fossils.

 

[NoXion]

This article seems to suggest that we've got enough Uranium for about 85 years:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2006/uranium_resources.html

The article also mentions that fast reactor technology would extend reserves to over 2500 years. Do either of those figures take into account reprocessing?

2005 prices for conventional uranium stock are about 60 USD per pound if I've got my sums right. That's well short of Cohen's 1000 USD per pound which could still be economical with breeder reactors.

Naturally, the more nuclear power plants we build the more uranium we'll get through.

That's an issue that can be significantly ameliorated if better reactor designs (e.g. breeders, fast reactors) are put to widespread use and reprocessing of nuclear fuel continues or is expanded. Again, the uranium doesn't have to last forever. It just has to last long enough.

But I'm more concerned about the fact we still don't know what to do with the nuclear waste we've already produced, never mind the waste from another century of nuclear power.

Reprocessing significantly reduces the volume of waste and the rest can be dealt with using short-term storage to allow the nastier stuff to dissipate (it's nastier because it's more energetic, and if it's more energetic then it can't last all that long) followed by vitrification of the remaining waste. This isn't to say that dealing with nuclear waste is utterly trivial, but neither is it the insoluble conundrum that anti-nuclear partisans like to try to portray it as.