Great Western Coffee Shop

From my inbox - from Extinction Rebellion UK


I have posted this for you diaries - whether you want to join in their activities, replan you day to avoid disruptions, or go ahead with a normal day on principle ... the Coffee Shop has brought you the date.

FA Cup Final isn’t it?

Thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure the water cannon is ready in good time!

If they hold a "die in" as is traditional at such events, is there not a risk that protestors lying down and pretending to be dead, could be confused with people who have actually died from coronavirus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgZBTs4VPfo (ftp://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgZBTs4VPfo)

Or spectators who have been overcome by the excitement of the occasion.

Is that a new euphamism for blind drunk?

.)

It all depends how good the match is.  ;)

I have removed this date from our diary; events have rather overtaken us.  There's a degree of irony that a different extinction risk has overtaken us since this thread was started ... and some of the climate issues have been helped along - perhaps in a temporary way - due to that immediate "extinction risk".

There would be no messing from the Police this year as the social distancing and large gatherings will remain as emergency powers, hence the Police will have no hesitation in arresting protesters under the emergency powers.   Also whilst in London and other large cities the public have just work around the annoyance there would be little acceptance if a protest got in the current way of life which made difficult due to the Covid 19 measures

One of the few positives from the current situation is that we'll be spared the activities of this mob I guess.

Quite enough dying going on without their ridiculous theatricals, and they cause enough disruption to the emergency services at the best of times.

Shame the police didn't take that attitude with the protests in Glastonbury over the past few weeks.
Took until the third day of protests and lots more media coverage before the police stopped standing by watching and started arresting and moving people on

...or joined the protests!

These kind of groups will benefit from the current lockdown

It will give them a way of changing the way they demonstrate etc without losing face
They were clearly falling foul of public backing over their recent protests

Any thoughts on what XR might get up to in the next couple of weeks of action?

Having seen the state of some of those parading around London today, I'd hope bathing is factored into it at some point soon.

Only with rainwater, either cold or heated with solar energy.https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284276480275?hash=item423032d913:g:wHgAAOSw-91g-Wfx (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284276480275?hash=item423032d913:g:wHgAAOSw-91g-Wfx)

Just another round of alienating ordinary people and putting them off the climate change discussion. For the XR leadership, the true objective is to destabilise the justice system, and therefore society in general, by a programme of civil disobedience that overfills the prisons. It isn't working in Belarus or Hong Kong.

There does seem to be growing support for extinction rebellion, despite the disruption.
The scale of the recent flooding in Europe, and the number of major forest fires worldwide are arguably concentrating public opinion on climate change.

There is a general view that "direct action" is the way to achieve major change, this may or may not be true, but is widely believed.

A comparison frequently made is with the now much reduced fur trade. Was this achieved by peaceful and democratic means ? No it was not, fire bombs in shops selling fur coats did the job.

Most people whom I know are concerned by climate change and believe that something should be done. Far fewer are willing to make significant changes to THEIR OWN life styles.
Joining a protest is far easier than giving up flying and driving, and reducing home energy use.

I think the point is that government action is required, the time for pointing fingers at individuals is over. Take domestic plastic use for example, if companies and retailers didn’t have the option of that packaging then we wouldn’t have to sort through it at home. Or travel, if we had money spent on other options of transport then we wouldn’t drive cars. Because of the policies of the past 40 years many of the other ways of doing things aren’t available anymore. This country as a whole just isn’t willing to admit it was a mistake….. yet!

This government’s current thinking is that the decision should be by the individual rather than changes in policies. It’s still treated like the debate of climate change happening or not is ongoing. By disruption, Extinction Rebellion keep this point in the government, industry’s and the public’s eye. If they didn’t then we would get complacent again and sit around waiting for electric cars to become affordable believing that’s all we have to do. People will not change if the option isn’t available. The disruption is negligible in comparison to the disruptive world that our children and grandchildren may experience when they grow old, and the disruption is well advertised so you can either join in or avoid it. I would personally encourage joining in, even if this is simply accepting what a group of people want to do to campaign make our lives better. You may not like their tactics but nobody joining extinction rebellion is obliged to join in with civil disobedience.

I think the point is - most accept that they have a right to demonstrate, but not for a fortnight. Maybe a day in each city, but a fortnight screwing up Londoners right to go about their business also is over the top.

Not just government action on a national scale, it won't really be effective unless it's on a global scale.

I really don’t see how p*****g people off is going to change people’s attitude towards climate change. I think it has the opposite effect.

Of course. That’s why Extinction Rebellion is an international organisation, but here we can only lobby our own government to change their policies. If they change, this will of course will have a knock on effect to other countries as like it or not we are still an influence on the world, although I’m not sure why. Much like it’s time to stop pointing the finger at individuals and their carbon footprint (an idea created by an oil company), it’s also time to stop blaming the rest of the world for the reason not to adapt your own country.

Traffic is just as disruptive to me if we are down to an individual level, it p***es me off  in it and passing it on foot or bicycle, but I realise there is a bigger picture that others are a factor of, including myself. Additionally, disruption comes in many positive and negative forms. The Reading festival is disruption for a few days and I avoid the town, it doesn’t mean I want to see an end to it being put on (although I personally feel this year isn’t necessary for obvious reasons). Football every other Saturday could be disruptive for those not at the game but would they want to see the end of it (possibly if they’re a Headington United, Aldersh*t or Swinedon fan). The point is not to change an individuals mind on climate change as it’s already a factor involved in our lives, the point is continued pressure on the government to change for the better. If some don’t like the disruption of Extinction Rebellion lobby your MP to change the government’s outlook on climate change.

Thought. Extinction Rebellion have a nightmare choice to make. Climate change is so fundamental that the issue needs almost beating into people. In practice, though, it can't be beaten in and has to be taken as far as it can be before it turns negative.  So where is that line that takes a campaign that's a good and heavily pressed one into an irritant that has negative effect when repeated yet AGAIN.

The best XR stunt in my view was the floating of a partially submerged house down the Thames.

The worst in my view was climbing on top of an underground train. Electric public transport should be encouraged.

The best statement in my view in the current protest
"SOME PEOPLE OBJECT TO ROAD CLOSURES,
SOME PEOPLE IN GERMANY DONT HAVE ROADS"
With a picture of a town in Germany, including the roads destroyed by flooding.

Cant find a link to it.
 
Wording above is reliant on my memory and might not be totally accurate, but certainly similar.

Oh dear. Nightmare choices indeed.

https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/outrage-after-extinction-rebellion-founder-reveals-what-car-she-drives/

This is pointing fingers at individuals similar to further up the thread and avoiding discussing changes in policy. We all contribute in some way to damaging the climate, it cannot be avoided because of circumstances. It’s not anyone’s fault, it’s a world we have been brought into. By suggesting somebody is not practicing what they preach is completely missing the point. It’s simply media diversion and point scoring to highlight the ‘you’re not changing so why should I’ debate that has rattled on for decades delaying what we know is happening, because people are under the impression it will take away privilege. This is something we are all in together, not a select few who can afford to be green if they choose to. The subject of climate change by now should not be political. We should be debating how to change, not deciding who’s doing the right or wrong thing. This is attempting to divide and pit the public against each other, which is what the media do best in this country.

With Covid and Afghanistan dominating the headlines, the timing hasn’t been great if they are looking for the kind of publicity similar to what they received in 2019. Yes I know these things take months of planning so how would you know what events are in the news. Though it was kind of obvious that Covid would still be.

The police appear to be a bit more proactive this time around moving the protests on even though the current laws mean that they have to police the protests with one hand tied behind their back. Outside of London, many probably won’t even know protests are taking place.

Can't agree more with this - shame XR aren't doing more in that direction.


Quite. If XR want to make their point heard, better get around the country then, rather than concentrate in just one conurbation. Along with idiotic protests like climbing on elecric public transport, they aren't doing themselves any favours in getting the public onside.

It is regrettable that they drive a diesel car and even more regrettable that they flew 11,000 miles for a holiday. Like many, they claim not to be able to afford an electric car. Would NOT taking the the holiday have paid for an EV ?

And yes, wider policies ARE more important than pointing the finger at one person, but founders of XR should perhaps set an example.

About 200 people arrested so far at extinction rebellion protests.
Giant pink table removed. Small pink structure erected at Oxford circus.
It all looks rather low key so far, but of course something more spectacular may be planned for the holiday weekend.

I didn't realise that anything was still happening.

Nothing much IS happening at present. Not sure if the protest has petered out, or if they are planning something else for the holiday weekend.

Shame yesterday they took their demonstration to the fountains outside Buckingham Palace, red dye in the fountains and red paint over the monuments....... yet again they have crossed the line

I think it possible that the almost total lack of coverage of the various antics has forced them to acts of wanton vandalism against public property in a desperate attempt to get some attention. The news agenda is pretty full at the moment.

Tom Slater at Spiked puts it all rather well ...

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/08/26/extinction-rebellion-doesnt-care-what-you-think/?utm_source=Today+on+spiked&utm_campaign=959182004d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_08_26_03_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b6dc1b7df1-959182004d-99427646

Was not aware of the protest outside Buckingham palace, due to the lack of reporting of same.
And yes I agree that they are looking a bit desperate to get some attention.

This time of year was known as the "silly season" when not much happens and the papers contained only gossip and odd reports about two headed snakes, and dogs giving birth to kittens.
This year however Afghanistan  has provided real news and crowded out most of the froth.

There is a report in my paper today - slightly more than I first realised, on page 10. Afghanistan occupies the first 7 pages. Other items of greater importance followed, including a photograph of a vintage tractor collection, news of a lack of blood collection tubes, and a report of a vital medical study into whether size matters. Climate change then got two reports, one about the XR folks being upset about the royals mistreating animals, and one about climate change being more of a worry than it was last year, but not among younger people so much.

If the plan was to hit the front pages, it has failed. Bit disappointing.

Diesel cars are more fuel-efficient than petrol are they not, so a diesel is a lower-CO2 choice than an equivalent petrol vehicle? Note that I said 'equivalent' - a heavy diesel SUV is probably going to get through more fuel than a lightweight petrol family car. Yes the particulates and NOX from diesel vehicles kill people, but in terms of climate change does the increased NOX (which I believe are greenhouse gasses) from a diesel outweigh the reduced CO2?

Flying on holiday though? That I cannot defend, prominent members of XR really should be setting an example by not flying.

Diesel cars are indeed preferable to petrol on global warming grounds. A liter of petrol or a liter of diesel emit about the same carbon dioxide when burnt.
But diesel engines are more efficient, so the liter of diesel fuel will take the vehicle a greater distance.

Diesel engines do unfortunately emit more fine particles and other pollutants, these are of negligible GLOBAL significance but can have serious local health effects.

Both should whenever possible be replaced by cycling, walking or electric vehicles for local journeys and by trains for greater distances.

This sort of thing is becoming popular,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-58676610 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-58676610)

Whilst not claiming to be XR, this lot are in my view very similar.
Last week they repeatedly blocked motorways, and a court injunction was granted to deter repetition of such tactics. So now blocking port of Dover.

I read elsewhere that Insulate Britain was started by one of the founders of XR.

Was not aware of that but it certainly sounds probable in view of the similarities.

One is a retired Bristol GP, whose name eludes me for the moment. I'm glad she never had any of my vital organs in her hands, but you never know, do you? They split from XR because they didn't think it was aggressive enough in its methods. One of their plans is to have lots of their members in prison in time for COP26, and I am very much in favour of that, even if s lot of them do look rather elderly. I think they would enjoy their time behind bars, especially if they are still glued to the bit of M25 that was chiselled up to get them away quickly.

I am very much in favour of insulation, too, and have rather a lot of it myself. I also put loads in my previous home, all of which was extremely cheap at B&Q or Wickes. I believe there are already plenty of schemes to help those who can't do the work themselves, so I am not sure what the fuss is all about.

Frankly, there are more pressing actions needed that will cut emmissions far sooner & quicker than insulation. I wonder why they chose this action?

Are there ? Insulation of existing structures is often said to be one of quickest and  easiest options to reduce carbon emissions.
And opposed by almost no one.

Other options are in general more expensive, slower to implement, and subject to the NIMBY factor.

Speaking of action, meet consequence. From the Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/james-brown-extinction-rebellion-southwark-crown-court-northern-ireland-london-city-airport-b957137.html):
(Continues at source)

Whilst I am sure that Mr Brown acted out of a deeply held personal conviction, I find it sad that he has fallen for the hype and acted in this way. It is most unlikely to have achieved anything, except possibly a strengthening of police powers, and I wonder if he had considered the damage it will do to his career. I work with disabled people, and have a certificate of my past prison sentences (or lack of) from the Disclosure and Barring Service of the Home Office. He is going to find it hard to pay BA's costs without a job.


A very accurate point. I personally have lots of insulation in my house. I wouldn't be without it. I urge anybody who doesn't have enough to nip down to a DIY store, buy some, and throw it in the attic. A shame you didn't do it when it was being subsidised, but you'll still get your money back soon enough. A shame too that you didn't do it before the Green Homes Grant scheme closed in March - I don't recall XR or anybody shouting about it during protests prior to then.

Careful Tony, knowing Broadgage's attitude to aviation, you might be giving him ideas!  ;)

That worries me, but only slightly. He's a sensible sort. Just don't let him know that I flew to Jersey and back recently. On an A320, not an Embraer ERJ-190 like the one Mr Brown stuck himself to. Apparently, Airbuses have a less adhesive finish. You would expect the Brazilians to be smoother.

So are you saying that James Brown managed to get up (get on up) but had to stay on the scene?

I have no intention of climbing atop an aircraft.
I have SOME sympathy with those who do, but have no intention of joining in. Too old, too fat, too stiff, and also reasonably law abiding.

And besides, there aren't many A380s around just now.

(Sorry!)

My scepticism about these groups doing anything to promote the measures needed to mitigate climate change grows.

Lots of headlines and news time about disruption and stunts that do nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

In the meantime no-one can find newsroom time to hold Grant Shapps to account for not announcing an accelerated campaign to electrify the too large proportion of the UK rail system that remains unelectrified to follow up BoJo's sermons on climate change.

I suppose one could say that doing so with our current generating (no pun intended) equipment would mean that we would be swapping diesel for gas. It would still be a lot better overall, though, and a step in the right direction.

UK electricity whether for railway or other purposes already contains significant renewably generated power. Not just wind but also solar and hydroelectric power.
The year round average is variously reported as being from 40% to 50%.
This percentage is liable to increase for two reasons, firstly growing concerns about climate change, and secondly the current high price of natural gas is shifting the economic argument away from gas and towards renewables.

Diesel fuel by contrast is about 95% fossil fuel, and doubts exist as to the environmental merits of the other 5%.

So railway electrification is a good thing now, and will get still better.

I might question the figures, but I can't question the merits of electrifying the whole rail network.

Motorway protests continue, by "insulate Britain" an offshoot of XR.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-58721909 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-58721909)

And taking an interesting new twist...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/insulate-britain-m25-protester-married-153959335.html

Poor chap. Whether he approves of her actions or not, I suppose he's stuck with her.

Adds Insulate to injury.

Protest and blockade underway at an oil refinery, with the traditional pink boat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-59074870 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-59074870)

Probably wont amount to much.

And why PINK boats and other obstructions ? I thought that pink was more related to gay rights and the like, with green being more connected to environmental protests.

You're sooooooooo last century Broadgage (quite possibly 19th!) It's all about rainbows now!

Well I do date from about the middle of the last century !
Wartime rationing ended not long before I was invented.
I remember the severe winter of 1963.
I remember steam locomotives in daily use, not preserved.
And the good old days of cheap electricity "A penny a unit and the more you want the better" And that was an OLD penny a unit.
I remember old half pennies, and farthings being only recently extinct.

You & I must be about the same age! Can clearly remember playing in the snow of ‘63 on the beach on Romney Marsh…

Farthings were still legal tender until I started school, rendering the arithmetic textbooks obsolete, but still in use. "Ignore a farthing, and call three farthings a ha'penny" - I wondered how the teacher knew the answers. In 1963, I lived outside Oldham, on the moors. It snowed a lot. Somewhere in the family archive is a photo my dad took of a friend's bungalow, with just the chimney pot showing.
For electric, I recall my grandma's front room light with this sort of Christmas tree of smoking Bakelite adapters hanging below, with the iron and radio plugged in, and a light bulb that made the room darker when switched on.
Steam trains out of Mumps station were the big treat, but for actual transport, the trams are faster and cleaner, and a lot more convenient.

Protests against the oil industry resume.
Not certain if this is XR or some closely related group.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-60967159 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-60967159)
I agree with them that we should not be seeking new oil sources but should instead focus on renewable energy.

We cant drop fossil fuels overnight, but should in my view accept a steady decline in availability and look for alternatives.

Boris should please them then as he’sannouncing policy of nuclear & windfarms next week

also some more drilling for oil and gas it is rumoured. 

Might all change by the time he's finished reading the polling. Onshore windfarms are a lot less popular than they were before any were built, and before Covid had the city dwellers taking holidays in the English countryside. Home produced gas is in the ascendancy because of the troubles abroad, and nuclear is rising up the popularity charts as a good way of not having to rely on hangmen, henchmen and headsmen to keep the lights on.

Hmmm. I'm not sure that another U-turn on fracking to produce the onshore gas would be popular!

I had in mind the onshore wind, but anything can happen these days. Cuadrilla have been told not to cap the wells just yet.

Lack of gas and power cuts would be less popular than a U-turn on allowing fracking, though

One problem with nuclear is the lead time.  At least 10 years to come on line.

New gas and oil also have fairly long lead times. 

Onshore wind less so. 

Missing in the discussion is tidal power!  A Mersey tidal scheme is proposed and a schemes off the Isle of Wight and Anglsey/Yns Mon are at or nearing construction stage.  Tidal is predictable renewable energy.  Barrage schemes have long lead times, but moored turbines of the type in the two current schemes could be rolled out fairly quickly. 

The quickest win is more insulation!

Agreed on the insulation, but I wouldn't advise people to sit around waiting for someone else to do it.

Nuclear does have a long lead-in, although now we have two companies wanting to build small modular reactors, things may move a bit more sharply. We could be looking at the first couple by the end of the decade. Big nuke is a longer job, and I wonder if the country has sufficient people with the required skills to build two at the same time. Hinkley C has over 20,000 people working on the project, and we lost a generation of nuclear experts by stopping building after Sizewell B went live in 1995. Hinkley C is therefore something of a training project, with 1,000 apprentices, in the hope that the next plant will not take so long. Sites are available, next to existing or decommissioned nuclear plants. The third generation of reactors is a lot more efficient than our early Magnox fleet, in large part because they are not primarily for making plutonium for bombs.

Tidal power has proved elusive. There is The Sea, mighty and powerful, to be feared, admired and respected. There is also the sea, which old ladies and small children paddle in on holiday. There is a lot of energy, but it is rather spread out in most places, and nobody has really come up with anything workable - yet. Barrages and lagoons are a popular subject among some. They suffer the problems of long lead in times, the NIMBE (not in my blinking estuary) effect, and significant uncertainty over potential environmental effects. I don't subscribe to the usual conspiracy theories about them being blocked by oil companies, preferring the idea that financiers and insurers see the risks as too great. After all, if it turns out that the doom and gloom brigade were wrong, you might make a 5% return on your investment for a decent length of time, but if they were right, the economic disaster will be put down to you. There is yet to be a large scale trial to show one way or the other. I rather doubt that the technology will ever be widespread, but I am ready to be proven wrong.

Onshore wind causes, in my limited experience, more trouble than almost anything but fracking. The case I am familiar with took nearly 14 years from initial idea to subsidies being generated. The local Lib Dem MP lost his seat after supporting the idea, at a time when his party was in the ascendancy. He was otherwise well regarded and popular, so we assume it was that. The 8 parish councils affected all said no to the idea, the district planning meeting threw it out 13-0, and a meeting of the whole district council confirmed that vote by a 3-1 majority. All this democracy counted for nothing, when one man, a planning inspector, overturned the decision. I would say build them if certain conditions are met - support by all parish councils that will see it, along with any national park authorities and the local planning authority, with no objections from anyone living within a radius equal to ten times the height from floor to blade tip. That would not be a total ban, but would have the same effect.

The one really fast energy project of recent decades was the South Wales gas pipeline to Tirley, along with Milford Haven LNG terminal and three special ships. That was all done within 4 years, before a lot of protest groups really had time to organise. Some say the lights would have gone off had it not been done. There is little to see these days, but it does show that some things can happen quickly when there is a need.

I am hoping that importing gas will be only temporary until we have built a proper energy policy and structure. The shocks of the past few months seem to have concentrated minds somewhat.

Tidal is more than barriers and lagoons. The current projects in the Solent and Anglesey do not have lagoons or barriers they are tidal turbines.  The Solent is under construction and funding for the land works on Anglesey has been secured sop construction can start.  Assuming these systems function reliably then it could be a game changer for tidal power as it substantially reduces the investment and lead times. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-57156482
Cornwall Wave Hub to be sold for offshore wind farm
Published18 May 2021

A £42m wave energy facility launched 11 years ago is to be sold to an offshore wind farm company.

Wave Hub, an undersea "socket" located off Hayle in Cornwall, is meant to transfer electricity from wave energy producers to the National Grid.

So far no firms have used the facility for that purpose.

Owner Cornwall Council said it would be sold for an undisclosed sum to Swedish firm Hexicon in a deal expected to be completed at the end of May.
(Continues)..........

Good news then. Let's see how well this goes, in the hope that it does prove a game changer.


That's £42 million, plus the £14 million spent on maintenance.

The announcement has now been made. The main points are.

More offshore wind farms.
Eight new nuclear reactors at existing nuclear sites.
More drilling for oil and gas in the North sea.
Domestic heat pumps to be encouraged.
Little mention of onshore wind farms.
Little mention of solar energy.
Almost no mention of reducing consumption.

My own views may be sumarised as;

More off shore wind--------- excellent as this is a proven technology available right now.
New nuclear--------------Neutral, due to concerns about ever extending completion dates and ever inflating costs.
More drilling for oil and gas-------Regrettable, we should be reducing use of these fossil fuels, not looking for more.
More heat pumps--------Neutral, they have their merits but are costly and complicated.
Little mention of ONshore wind--------Regrettable as this is the cheapest source of electricity.
Little mention of solar------------Regrettable as more use of this proven and quick to implement technology is desirable.

Almost no mention of reducing consumption, understandable as most people hate it !

Big nuclear won't deliver till about 2035 at the earliest.
Domestic heat pumps won't be any good if there is not enough electricity to power them.
No mention of insulation which could actually reduce demand

So in the short term we emit more carbon and push loads of people into poverty, but hey it might be ok in 20 years if the country lasts that long. 

"If the country lasts that long" ! Careful or you will start to sound like me !

Nuclear MIGHT produce economical electric power one day, but I share your concerns about the time that it will take.

Domestic heat pumps show some promise but as you point out require electricity. A heat pump is inherently costly and complicated.

My preferred heating system for new homes would be such good insulation that very little heating is needed. A small enough heating demand can be met affordably from electricity.

For existing homes that can not be affordably improved, then I favour a log burning stove for the most used room.

Another possibility would be wet central heating from a large hot water tank that is heated by off peak electricity.

Totally agree


There I would disagree the air quality implications of this are very damaging.   see this from the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/18/wood-burners-triple-harmful-indoor-air-pollution-study-finds#:~:text=Wood%20burners%20triple%20the%20level,for%20refuelling%2C%20a%20study%20found)


Thermal heatstores as they have become known are becoming more widespread. Some more modern ones do not use water as the storage medium - rather like the old nightstore heaters.  They benefit from high temperature heat sources so not so good for heat pumps at the moment.  Very useful complement to a solar roof though! Can be topped up from the grid when necessary. 

In my view wood burning stoves need to be discouraged and eventually phased out. They were promoted from 20 years or so ago on the concept of biofuel being good on a nett carbon perspective ignoring the particulate problem, similar in some respects to preferring diesel fuel for cars. Although this can be mitigated to some extent by stove design, eliminating open fires, and by the use only of properly dried wood this cannot be removed altogether. Presently wood burning in London is the cause of 2.5 times the particulates produced by road transport.

Maybe someone can answer this question: I can see that it may be possible to identify which particulates come from burning wood, but is it possible to tell what proportion of these emissions come from burning properly dried wood in 'ecodesign' stoves? Is it possible that it might be a very small proportion?

The figure I quoted above is one from analysis of PM2.5 emissions done for DEFRA from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. This  was done on 2016 data so not right up to date but not terribly old either. London is a smokeless zone pretty much completely and so no wood should be being burnt on an open fire in homes there.

This report may have more detail: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat05/1801301017_KCL_WoodBurningReport_2017_FINAL.pdf

Rome wasn't built in a day, and Hinkley C certainly isn't going to be. Yes, it takes a long time, but I wouldn't want people 20 years from now saying "If only the government had started the process of building new nuclear in 2022, we wouldn't be in this mess now". I'm still annoyed with Margaret Beckett, who in 2002 decided no new nuclear should be built because it would cost votes, and threw all the money at wind instead. (Currently supplying a not-so-massive 4% of our electricity, and yes I know it does better some days.) Straight after that, the pipeline from Milford Haven to Gloucestershire was built, opening in 2007, intended to allow a fifth of the gas we use to be imported. So we said no to nuclear, yes to renewables, and built a huge fossil fuel facility. Had we said yes to nuclear and some renewables instead, we would probably have burnt a lot more coal in power stations for a decade and had three or four gleaming new nukes chucking out vast amounts of green electricity, and be about to demolish the coal plants. Then again, we might have had the wrong nuclear technology, although not the old Magnox plants, meant for plutonium production first. Then again, if my auntie had nuts...


I've gone off heat pumps of late, as I research them for a new build property with plenty of land. The physics is sound, but the engineering less so, as you infer. I am hopeful that the technology will improve greatly, although I am not sure what research is going on, and I am not giving up my (4 year old and regularly services) gas boiler just yet. District heating will be better in the urban setting, so long as people can be sure it will always be cheap and reliable. It is in Iceland, although they have obvious advantages. Geothermal should work nicely in some places, so long as nobody realises that the warmth comes from nuclear decay heating water running through fractured rocks.

I certainly can't argue with the idea of good insulation. I am hoping that if no other good comes out of the recent price increases, it will be that people without good insulation stop wating for the government to do something, and get on with the job themselves. There are a lot of relatively low-cost fixes. I'm not so sure about log burning stoves from an environmental point of view, though I would have one myself if I were to move elsewhere.

The large hot water tank is an interesting idea, at least for anyone with room for one, but I wonder how long we will have off-peak electricity when everything is electric?

On your earlier post, I think I would be quite happy for onshore wind nearby if everyone local supported the idea, as that would mean there wouldn't be any. Polls show 3-1 support for onshore wind, but not if you ask the people who live where they would be built. Conversely, nuclear tends to be more popular in its own back yard than elsewhere. I don't know if that is because of the well-paid jobs, or because it's statistically a lot less dangerous than wind energy, but the neighbours don't seem to feel they are living in the shadow of looming disaster.


If there is research data to answer your question, I haven't been able to find it either. Neither DEFRA nor HETAS gives figures on their website. It's possible that they have found through limited investigation that even some owners of the most advanced eco-burners are not against rummaging through skips or chopping up used pallets when times are a little on the hard side, and their policy is based on the assumption that all behave in similar fashion when no-one is watching.

Luckily the nuclear decay is a long way away from the water being heated by it! That decay is also making Iceland and the Atlantic, and subducting the Pacific along the 'Ring of Fire'.

Although since the 1920's (and earlier), visionaries could see evidence that the continents must all have at one time been conjoined and have therefore must have drifted to their current positions. The idea was strongly condemned at the time as there was then no viable means of powering the process. It was Arthur Holmes of Durham University in the 1930s that realised it was nuclear decay in the mantle driving continental scale convection cells therein. Plate tectonics was born.

HOLMES, A. (1931). Radioactivity and Earth movements:
Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, 18 (3), pp. 559-606.

There has been a lot of mention in the media about Rolls-Royce's 'small' modular nuclear power plants and their potential advantages. Much less if any that they were proposing these back in the early 1990s, albeit a somewhat different design concept, in association with the UKAEA and a couple of American partners and could get no financial support from the government of the day or for that matter the electricity industry although they were in the midst of privatisation.

Whether that proved to be a lucky break, allowing the technology to develop before building the first, or yet another example of government procrastination, I am not sure. Possibly a bit of both. Rolls Royce have form in the small modular market to a degree, with submarine systems going back nearly 60 years. The small modular reactor is also a pressurised water design, now in the process of generic design assessment by the regulators, as of last month.

The current Rolls-Royce design is if anything rather more 'conventional' than the 1990 one, although that too was a PWR concept. This may have the benefit through being closer to deployed plant of having a more similar safety case but can't on the other hand benefit from shifting the 'economy of scale' line of something a bit more innovative.