Goodbye nuclear power?

Finally, the world’s third biggest generator of nuclear power is shutting down its national programme. Following months of public consultation after the Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan has decided to shut down all of its 50 nuclear power reactors by 2040.

Japan will be investing heavily in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The two biggest German electricity companies, Eon and RWE , have said they will not be building any more nuclear reactors. They believe that renewables are the future of energy generation. Both Germany and Switzerland are committed to abandoning nuclear power.

See this report in the Guardian for more detail:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/japan-end-nuclear-power

Unfortunately, the pro-nuclear lemmings are still arguing for more nuclear power stations despite the dangers. See Mark Lynas comment piece also in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/14/nuclear-global-warming

 

In the meantime Dungeness B reactor Kent has reduced power output due to a faulty stem valve (letter of 14^th September 2012 from Dungeness Station Director)..Just another example 

of the inefficiency of nuclear power. Nuclear reactors often run at reduced capacity because of faults – major and minor. For really major problems they have to be shut down. Two nuclear reactors in Minnesota have just been shut down this week. See

http://www.pennenergy.com/index/power/display/1305256433/articles/pennenergy/power/nuclear/2012/august/xcel-nuclear_reactors.html 

Reactors are also shut down regularly for fuel rod replacement.

When will this country finally realise that, with the best wind regime in Europe, we really don’t need nuclear power. Energy efficiency and renewables are capable of providing us with all the energy we need. We just need to take them seriously and invest now. If Germany can do it – so can we.

The Greenest government ever – finally showing its true colours

Will he won’t he? Cameron’s’ cabinet re-shuffle points towards a shift to the right of the political spectrum and yet more downgrading of the environment as a result. Getting rid of Justine Greening is a clear signal that he wants to proceed with the third runway at Heathrow. Greening was the main opponent in Government: although Boris isn’t too pleased that his pet project of an estuary airport is now in jeopardy. As Greens, of course, we wouldn’t  want either.

Zac Goldsmith, now a Tory MP, may have finally realised his mistake in abandoning us and joining the Tories. See his anguished article in the Guardian on a U-Turn on a third runway at Heathrow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/07/third-runway-heathrow-betrayal

As a long term environmental campaigner, Zak’s article is well informed and well reasoned. He denies that we need any more capacity and proposes more rational use of the current capacity as well as reiterating well known Green Party policy that we need to encourage the shift from air travel to rail citing the high number of UK internal flights - all of which could be made by rail.

Already night flights at Heathrow are being considered: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/07/heathrow-night-flights-airport-capacity?newsfeed=true

The one thing this government is unlikely to do is make the necessary investment in rail so that it can compete with aviation. Instead we have the most expensive rail fares in the world – and the South East has the highest fares in the country. 

See Kent Green party’s website on how rail fares have continued to rise in real terms under this Government whilst car journeys are subsidised from general taxation. http://kentgreenparty.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/public-subsidies-for-private-motorists.html

Hardly the polices of a ‘green’ government

Water, water everywhere – but not enough!

This week is World Water week (August 26-31 in Stockholm). The organisers Stockholm International Water Institute have issued a report, ‘Feeding a thirsty world: Challenges and Opportunities for a

Water and Food Secure Future’. The report points out that we do not have sufficient water to produce the food needed to feed the estimated 9 billion global population by 2050 if current trends towards a western style diet high in animal protein continue. However, our water resources would be just sufficient to feed that population if animal protein was limited to 5% of our diet worldwide. In other words, the whole population changed to a mainly vegetarian diet.  For details of the report see:

http://www.worldwaterweek.org/documents/Resources/Reports/Feeding_a_thirsty_world_2012worldwaterweek_report_31.pdf

 Water for growing food will increasingly compete with water for other needs. One industry with excessive water need is the nuclear power industry. A report for the Australian Parliament ascertained that nuclear power is the most water hungry form of power generation. Depending on whether the nuclear power plant uses ‘once through’ or ‘closed systems’ to cool their reactors, they consume between 33 – 50% more water than fossil fuel power plants. Despite having 23% of the world’s uranium deposits, Australia still has no nuclear power industry. For more detail see: http://www.efmr.org/files/07rn12.pdf

 

In a world of increasing water scarcity we can hardly afford to build power plants which are going to consume a scarce resource which is needed for the basic task of feeding the world. Why go nuclear when you can have renewable energy?

Train departure boards and the English language

Operators of train departure boards have redefined the English language.

Experience as a commuter has shown me that, at least in South Eastern region, strange usage of the English language has become the norm on train departure boards. According to the platform indicators trains have ‘arrived’ when the reach a point outside the station about half a minute before anyone on the platform can see them.

The indicators still show trains as ‘On time’ if they ‘arrive’ at the station up to 3 minutes after their scheduled departure time.

So a train has ‘arrived’ when  it is half a minute outside the station. Add another three minutes leeway when it is still considered ‘On time’. Now the ‘On time’ train is at the platform but it takes about two minutes for all the passengers to disembark from and get on the train.

Finally the train can leave the station half a minute ply three minutes plus two minutes after it should have left the station. Officially it is still ‘on time’, in reality the train is now five and a half minutes late. A redefinition of the words ‘on time’

On one particular occasion this abuse of the English language almost caused me to board the wrong train at London Bridge. I ran across the foot bridge at London Bridge to try and catch my train which was ‘on time’. The train which was standing at the platform as I rushed down the stairs closed its doors just before I could board it. The train at the platform was, in fact the train before mine and would have taken me in completely the wrong direction. 

Clear communication would be a wonderful thing.

Cycling helmets – should we wear them or not?

The death of a cyclist in London has reignited the debate about wearing helmets. There are arguments on both sides. I know of someone who spent six months in a coma after being flung across the bonnet of a car. Had she been wearing a helmet she would probably have walked away from the accident. 

However experience elsewhere demonstrates that there are down sides. After Australia introduced compulsory helmet use for cyclist, the number of people cycling went down by 40% amongst adults and 60% amongst children

The Australian Transport Safety  Bureau concludes that helmets do prevent and ameliorate injury. See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2000/pdf/Bic_Crash_5.pdf

However, the libertarian Institute of Public Affairs claims that ‘Even after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia's compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis.’ http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disaster

This is a contentious issue and both sides feel very strongly. Look forward to an animated public debate.

Of course, there are alternatives: proper cycle routes, dangerous junctions made safer for cyclists, particularly in big cities with heavy traffic, and proper training – and testing – for drivers on how to behave around cyclists.

Air pollution – to plant or not to plant

Despite many reports and much talk, Kent’s Air Quality does not seem to be improving. Medway has merged what was previously six Air Quality Management Areas into three – one very large and two smaller. Tonbridge and Malling Council recently rejected traffic calming measures for Tonbridge Lower High Street which has been an AQMA since June 2005. They also refuse to consider pedestrianisation of the High Street proposed by  local campaigning group PATHS (Pedestrianise Action Tonbridge High Street). Sign their on line petition at: http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/pedestrianise-tonbridge-high-street/3310

The religion of the car is well and thriving in Kent, in particular West Kent, much to the detriment of human health and wellbeing.

So, if our Councils won’t consider the obvious solutions to poor air quality, pedestrianisation and traffic calming, what remains? The University of Oxford conducted a three year study into ‘Ivy on walls’ for English Heritage on a variety of sites around the country and came up with some surprising results. In areas of heavy traffic, ivy reduced particulates , which are the main cause of respiratory problems, by 60 – 85 %. Ivy was particularly effective at reducing the smallest particles. See http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/publicationsNew/ivy-on-walls/ivy-on-walls-seminar-rep-2010.pdf

 

As regards the concerns voiced that ivy can damage walls, the study found that ivy would root in existing defects, but caused no damage to walls which were already damaged. In fact, ivy covering on walls reduced damage by fluctuating temperatures and freezing.

More recently Transport for London has established its second green wall at a pollution hot spot in London. A study by Imperial College of the first London green wall on the Marylebone Road has shown that, green walls planted strategically can reduce air pollution by 30%, much greater than the 5% achieved by conventional street planting.

So what are we waiting for? Why is Kent still in the dark ages as regards combating air pollution. Get planting at your pollution hot spots – and then pedestrianise!

Hey ho – another day’s torture commuting from London Bridge.

Yesterday, I came home via London Bridge. When I arrived there the station was in complete chaos. Now I am used to the two departure boards becoming pure fantasy in such situations. They will tend to contradict each other and indulge in time travel. For example, yesterday a train was showing as departing at 18.23 when it was already 18.42. 

But, hitherto, the platform departure boards have always been my true friends. Not so yesterday. First the 18.12 appeared on the platform 2 board – and then disappeared only to be replaced by a local train. Once that had gone, it reappeared – only to disappear again.

I went back up the foot bridge to see if there was more information. There was no announcement and no display saying cancelled. It had simply disappeared from all displays.

Kent commuting from London Bridge is made more hazardous because your train can leave from platform 2 or from platform 5 – at opposite ends of the station. Kent commuters therefore spend a lot of time on the footbridge poised to hurry to which ever platform is showing the next Kent train.

Eventually the 18.15 left from platform 5 – after 45 minutes without a single train leaving for Tonbridge. A big thank you to the lovely gentleman who gave me his seat after we left Chelsfield and allowed me put down the ton of student marking I was carrying in my back pack.

At times platform 2 was dangerously overcrowded. If something like this happens during the Olympics how on earth is London Bridge going to cope without an accident?