We are frequently encouraged to use public transport more and our cars less. In situations where this can reduce congestion and pollution I am all for it, after all I can relax and have a cold beer if I am not driving.
Trouble is, public transport seems to have so many problems to make this impractical in many instances. Take today for example, we are told by the rail companies that due to the warm weather a number of services will be cancelled during the day and others will run at significantly reduced speed.
Add this to the problems in the past from the wrong kind of snow, leaves on the line, too much rain and you get the picture - our trains only run under optimal conditions
If I am making an important trip, I have to take into account the possible problems before deciding if I should drive or take the train. Whilst it is true that road travel also has it's issues, you would anticipate that as the railway is a much more controlled environment from a traffic poiint of view it could be run much more reliably. I believe it is done in other countries, why not here?
This reminds me of an amusing story from some years ago now.
A university friend had stopped with me on her way to an interview with British Rail as it was then. On the morning of her interview I took her to Preston Rail Station to enable her to travel to the interview in Crewe using the rail pass she had been given.
When we arrived we waited for the train which didn't show on time - the boards always seemed to indicate it would arrive in ten minutes. Further enquiries with staff showed that they had no idea where the train was and that in fact they had not seen the previous train on that service yet either (now some 90 minutes late).
I drove my friend to Crewe as it appeared that the train would be an issue. When we arrived at Crewe station neither of the two trains had yet arrived from Preston.
To top it all off, the interviewer reported there had been a very poor turnout for the interview (could this be something to do with trains not arriving do you think?)
Monday, June 27, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Climate change through time
Having just experienced a very heavy downpour towards the end of June, I think it is time to talk about climate change. Once called global warming until that became old hat, we are now told that the climate is changing and it is all our fault.
First we must overcome the religious apologists who believe that as the Earth is no more than about 10,000 years old the evidence which follows cannot be true.
The problem we have is that climate change can be treated like all statistics. Choose your sample carefully so that it demonstrates your point. This link https://www.planetseed.com/node/15221 however shows both change over a short period and change over a longer period (425,000 years). Looking over the longer period it would seem that climate change is natural, and whilst we humans may have some influence on it, it will be interesting to try and work out what proportion is down to our activities.
More evidence is also available from research further afield. Scientists have found evidence of planetary warming on Mars - no 4x4 vehicles there, or power stations or any of the other 'culprits' for causing climate change.
Recent reports suggest that we may even pause the rise in temperatures currently being claimed. This is because sunspot activity is less than we would expect from the cycles we are familiar with. Surely the climate change activists cannot blame that on mankind!
Our government has signed us up to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next few years. There is no viable plan as to how this will be achieved. My recent research into local wind turbines shows that benefits are massively overstated, not to mention the fact that we cannot store the power generated in windy periods for use when it is calm. Wave and tidal power systems appear to be coming along well but still have a long way to go. The use of solar water heating and PV cells is best implemented at household level but having looked at the costs of PV, I think I will be dead before I can recoup my initial investment never mind any maintenance costs.
Nuclear power is at present a sensitive subject given the events in Japan earlier this year. The problem we have here however is that our existing capacity is reaching the end of it's life and no replacement stations are under development - therefore we are likely to have a gap to fill somehow even if new nuclear stations are given the go ahead.
Maybe I should approach the government for a research grant. I can develop pedal powered generators to allow all households to generate electricity whilst sitting at home. If they generate enough they can watch the TV whilst pedalling or use a computer to read my blog!
First we must overcome the religious apologists who believe that as the Earth is no more than about 10,000 years old the evidence which follows cannot be true.
The problem we have is that climate change can be treated like all statistics. Choose your sample carefully so that it demonstrates your point. This link https://www.planetseed.com/node/15221 however shows both change over a short period and change over a longer period (425,000 years). Looking over the longer period it would seem that climate change is natural, and whilst we humans may have some influence on it, it will be interesting to try and work out what proportion is down to our activities.
More evidence is also available from research further afield. Scientists have found evidence of planetary warming on Mars - no 4x4 vehicles there, or power stations or any of the other 'culprits' for causing climate change.
Recent reports suggest that we may even pause the rise in temperatures currently being claimed. This is because sunspot activity is less than we would expect from the cycles we are familiar with. Surely the climate change activists cannot blame that on mankind!
Our government has signed us up to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next few years. There is no viable plan as to how this will be achieved. My recent research into local wind turbines shows that benefits are massively overstated, not to mention the fact that we cannot store the power generated in windy periods for use when it is calm. Wave and tidal power systems appear to be coming along well but still have a long way to go. The use of solar water heating and PV cells is best implemented at household level but having looked at the costs of PV, I think I will be dead before I can recoup my initial investment never mind any maintenance costs.
Nuclear power is at present a sensitive subject given the events in Japan earlier this year. The problem we have here however is that our existing capacity is reaching the end of it's life and no replacement stations are under development - therefore we are likely to have a gap to fill somehow even if new nuclear stations are given the go ahead.
Maybe I should approach the government for a research grant. I can develop pedal powered generators to allow all households to generate electricity whilst sitting at home. If they generate enough they can watch the TV whilst pedalling or use a computer to read my blog!
Supermarket Scams
For some time now I have had issues with claims made by supermarkets that at face value look like they are trying to be very environmentally friendly. For my first post on the subject I will select just a few key points.
One of the big issues today is single use plastic carrier bags. I agree that we need to cut down on these because they not only provide a significant problem when it comes to disposal, although many biodegrade very effectively, but also in the resources they take to make and distribute.
The supermarkets therefore say that they will help reduce the number of bags used by charging per bag. The number of bags used has gone down, but how much is due to this charge is unclear. However the supermarket's profits have now gone up.
Take a look at the maths. Previously the supermarket issued a large number of bags at no cost. Therefore they bore the expense of production, storage and distribution. Now they charge the customer and take these expenses out of what they charge, donating any excess to charity in some cases. Given that the expense of a bag will be rather less than the 5 - 10p or so typically charged, they have cut their overheads significantly. Does the consumer benefit - what do you think?
Another issue, and only trumpetted by one major supermarket, is the streamlining of trailers to save fuel, reduce emissions and so help the environment. Again they fail to mention that in saving fuel they reduce their costs and so increase the bottom line profits. True, they have to buy the new trailers but transport fleets are continually renewing their trailers so this is not a case of making a massive change to the fleet, but simply choosing a different trailer when making a replacement.
It is interesting that a number of hauliers are introducing these new trailers - only one company seems to be making a big thing of it. I will return to some of their other claims in future posts.
Big claims then about how wonderfull they are, not a word about how this increases their profits. No need to wonder why that is!
One of the big issues today is single use plastic carrier bags. I agree that we need to cut down on these because they not only provide a significant problem when it comes to disposal, although many biodegrade very effectively, but also in the resources they take to make and distribute.
The supermarkets therefore say that they will help reduce the number of bags used by charging per bag. The number of bags used has gone down, but how much is due to this charge is unclear. However the supermarket's profits have now gone up.
Take a look at the maths. Previously the supermarket issued a large number of bags at no cost. Therefore they bore the expense of production, storage and distribution. Now they charge the customer and take these expenses out of what they charge, donating any excess to charity in some cases. Given that the expense of a bag will be rather less than the 5 - 10p or so typically charged, they have cut their overheads significantly. Does the consumer benefit - what do you think?
Another issue, and only trumpetted by one major supermarket, is the streamlining of trailers to save fuel, reduce emissions and so help the environment. Again they fail to mention that in saving fuel they reduce their costs and so increase the bottom line profits. True, they have to buy the new trailers but transport fleets are continually renewing their trailers so this is not a case of making a massive change to the fleet, but simply choosing a different trailer when making a replacement.
It is interesting that a number of hauliers are introducing these new trailers - only one company seems to be making a big thing of it. I will return to some of their other claims in future posts.
Big claims then about how wonderfull they are, not a word about how this increases their profits. No need to wonder why that is!
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Electric Car con
As a green frenzy appears to be taking over the country I notice that 'All Electric' cars are being promoted more. Why?
The electric car is NOT the answer to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sure they don't put any out at the point of use, so cities will be cleaner, but all that happens is that the emissions are transferred back to the power station. As we are not presently building any new nuclear stations in this country and renewables constitute such a low percentage of the total generation, this means that all the extra demand for electricity will fall on fossil fuel power stations. How is that greener?
We are told that by using electric cars we will be ready when renewables take off. But when will that be? Not for some time as we will need to increase our planned build to cope with the existing demand never mind the extra imposed by electric cars.
And then we have the issue of range - many people with an electric car will need a conventional car to travel the longer distances that the electric car cannot manage. Typical range on a good day seems to be in the order of 80 to 100 miles, before needing a high power charge point or a long time at a normal domestic power point.
Few people will be able to afford the electric car initially, as the price is disproportionally high compared with a conventional car. I am sure prices will come down (and also some consideration will have to be given to battery replacement otherwise second hand cars will have little value) but in the meantime they are likely to be the domain of celebrities who use them as a status symbol to show off their 'green' credentials.
Battery packs present another issue in addition to their likely high cost of replacement, and that is the environmental impact both of production and disposal. These are potentially very dangerous and toxic to the environment.
What is the solution - well we can either cut down on travel, not likely given that many people live some distance from work and their families, or we can improve upon what we have until we have the renewables power generation to support electric vehicles and the range is increased to be viable. Add to that the addressing of battery issues and then it may become viable.
Until then, I am sticking with my diesel car and minimising my mileage where possible.
The electric car is NOT the answer to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sure they don't put any out at the point of use, so cities will be cleaner, but all that happens is that the emissions are transferred back to the power station. As we are not presently building any new nuclear stations in this country and renewables constitute such a low percentage of the total generation, this means that all the extra demand for electricity will fall on fossil fuel power stations. How is that greener?
We are told that by using electric cars we will be ready when renewables take off. But when will that be? Not for some time as we will need to increase our planned build to cope with the existing demand never mind the extra imposed by electric cars.
And then we have the issue of range - many people with an electric car will need a conventional car to travel the longer distances that the electric car cannot manage. Typical range on a good day seems to be in the order of 80 to 100 miles, before needing a high power charge point or a long time at a normal domestic power point.
Few people will be able to afford the electric car initially, as the price is disproportionally high compared with a conventional car. I am sure prices will come down (and also some consideration will have to be given to battery replacement otherwise second hand cars will have little value) but in the meantime they are likely to be the domain of celebrities who use them as a status symbol to show off their 'green' credentials.
Battery packs present another issue in addition to their likely high cost of replacement, and that is the environmental impact both of production and disposal. These are potentially very dangerous and toxic to the environment.
What is the solution - well we can either cut down on travel, not likely given that many people live some distance from work and their families, or we can improve upon what we have until we have the renewables power generation to support electric vehicles and the range is increased to be viable. Add to that the addressing of battery issues and then it may become viable.
Until then, I am sticking with my diesel car and minimising my mileage where possible.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The pampered public sector
We are hearing in the news that various elements of the public sector are planning strikes over a number of causes but many relate to pay and pensions. There is of course the allegation that they intend to teach the Coalition Government a lesson.
I have two main issues with this.
Firstly, pay and pensions.
Many public sector employees will find that for someone with their skills the private sector will pay no more and sometimes less for a comparable job. Furthermore it is clear that whilst the public sector is experiencing pay freezes and pay restraints, so is the private sector - so there is no inequality there then.
Public sector unions are complaining about the rise in pension age - welcome to the real world where the higher age already applies to many in the private sector - and as for the concern that pensions are to be based on an average of earnings over a number of years prior to retirement rather than earnings at retirement then they should spare a thought for those who have pensions invested in the stock market. What is the saying? Oh, yes 'the value of investments may go down as well as up'!
Secondly, and this is a real worry, teaching the government a lesson.
Bringing the country to it's knees can only be detrimental to the fragile economic recovery. It is historical fact that we are in a financial mess as a country so there is no point arguing over whose fault that is. We should look forward to how we can recover. Regardless of which party or combination of parties came into government at the last election, hard decisions would have to have been made. We must all work together to sort this mess out. Strikes may express the concerns of those striking, but if we have a concerted season of strikes as has been suggested then only harm can result.
Protest by all means, but let's try not to damage the recovery.
I have two main issues with this.
Firstly, pay and pensions.
Many public sector employees will find that for someone with their skills the private sector will pay no more and sometimes less for a comparable job. Furthermore it is clear that whilst the public sector is experiencing pay freezes and pay restraints, so is the private sector - so there is no inequality there then.
Public sector unions are complaining about the rise in pension age - welcome to the real world where the higher age already applies to many in the private sector - and as for the concern that pensions are to be based on an average of earnings over a number of years prior to retirement rather than earnings at retirement then they should spare a thought for those who have pensions invested in the stock market. What is the saying? Oh, yes 'the value of investments may go down as well as up'!
Secondly, and this is a real worry, teaching the government a lesson.
Bringing the country to it's knees can only be detrimental to the fragile economic recovery. It is historical fact that we are in a financial mess as a country so there is no point arguing over whose fault that is. We should look forward to how we can recover. Regardless of which party or combination of parties came into government at the last election, hard decisions would have to have been made. We must all work together to sort this mess out. Strikes may express the concerns of those striking, but if we have a concerted season of strikes as has been suggested then only harm can result.
Protest by all means, but let's try not to damage the recovery.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The Sceptical Curmudgeon arrives
Welcome to The Sceptical Curmudgeon.
The name says all you need to know about me and indeed my wife describes me as Mr Grumpy.
I find Twitter and Facebook a little limiting for some of my moans so here is the answer to that. I can write reams of text which I hope some may read, and I expect some to agree whilts others disagree - it is after all supposed to be a free country so you can think what you wish as long as it doesn't harm others.
You will note I use the English spelling for Sceptical. I am English!
The name says all you need to know about me and indeed my wife describes me as Mr Grumpy.
I find Twitter and Facebook a little limiting for some of my moans so here is the answer to that. I can write reams of text which I hope some may read, and I expect some to agree whilts others disagree - it is after all supposed to be a free country so you can think what you wish as long as it doesn't harm others.
You will note I use the English spelling for Sceptical. I am English!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)