It is welcome news that Barnet Council has finally decided to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But what unambitious targets! I wouldn't even call them half-hearted - they are quarter-hearted at best.
More than 200 local authorities are already implementing energy savings projects and some have already achieved much more than the 5 pct cut in household consumption and 10 pct per organisation which Barnet is giving itself until 2012 to reach. Woking, for instance, has reduced the release of carbon dioxide by 17 pct across the whole borough as well as slashing the council's own contribution by 70 pct.
Why is Barnet Council not leading by example by installing solar panels and wind turbines at its own sites? For instance, Barnet House and the North London Business Park buildings would seem ideal for solar panels.
Actually, I can guess the answer to that question - I expect certain members of the Conservative administration are still opposed to the idea. Earlier this year Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the plan for a wind turbine at Frith Manor School. Perhaps he would rather have a nuclear power station on Totteridge fields?
Personally, I find wind turbines quite pleasing to look at. The council can build one next to my allotment any time it likes.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is becoming increasingly urgent, as shown by research published last week demonstrating that carbon dioxide levels in the world's atmosphere are rising faster than anyone has forecast.
Cutting consumption of fossil fuels is something we all should be doing for other reasons too, notably to conserve the world's rapidly depleting resources.
And people like Mr Coleman should bear in mind that lowering use of energy saves money. Woking Council saved £1 million over 10 years thanks to its CO2 reduction project.
Sunday, 18 November 2007
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Norway to build world's first osmotic power plant
Here are details of yet another better alternative to building new nuclear power stations:
Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.
Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.
Monday, 1 October 2007
Renewable energy better than nuclear power
My 11 reasons why the government should invest money in wind, soar and marine power rather than new nuclear power plants:
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Frith Manor wind turbine
News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
Saturday, 30 June 2007
Keep ticket offices open at tube stations
Please campaign against the proposal by Transport for London to completely close the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East stations on the Northern Line as part of the closure of 40 ticket offices across London.
Any savings will be outweighed by a large fall in revenues from those stations, I believe. In addition, difficulties in buying a ticket are likely to cause many people to switch to alternative travel methods, while a heightened feeling of insecurity when no staff are around may put people off travelling by Underground, they say.
Revenues will fall at the three local stations because some people will be deterred from using the Northern Line and others will take advantage of the lack of supervision to travel without paying.
Around 40 pct of underground travellers still use paper tickets, according to TfL's own figures, and many of these are tourists and other infrequent travellers who are quite likely to need assistance.
In any case, TfL's claim that ticket offices are not needed at the three stations because most people use Oyster cards does not hold water, since the offices are not just used by people buying traditional paper tickets. Even Oyster users will need the ticket office from time to time, when they are having problems with the machine or if they have lost their card and need a replacement.
If, as TfL insists, staff will be redeployed elsewhere on the three stations, there is no reason why duty employees should not open up the ticket office as and when requested by travellers. Instead, even before the official closure date, staff are barred from selling tickets through the window outside the already-restricted opening hours.
The ticket office is the obvious place for anyone to go to if they want help with buying a ticket or need assistance reaching the platforms because of infirmity or disability. Similarly, if someone sees something suspicious, feels threatened or is actually being threatened or attacked, he or she will receive help much more quickly if there is someone visible at the station to appeal to, rather than use the communications devices which are being installed on local stations.
"The closure of the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East is likely to have a gradual and cumulative effect on the number of people using those stations. People who have a bad experience once may decide not to use the tube on future occasions when they might otherwise have done so," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green Party speaker on the environment.
For more detailts or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
To make your own protest contact:
Customer Service Centre
London Underground
55 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BD
tel: 0845 330 9880
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Set 20 mph limit near homes
All residential streets should have a 20 mph speed limit, along the lines of the plan agreed by Portsmouth City Council.
The limit could be a new safety measure or could be a replacement where road humps or other traffic calming installations have been removed.
Emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances are already exempt from speed limits so their journeys would not be hampered in any way.
Another advantage of a 20 mph limit is that much less petrol is needed to drive at a steady 20 than to keep slowing and accelerating, as many drivers do on roads with speed humps.
At a time when many children are being prevented from playing outside because their parents fear the potenial dangers, we should consider anything which can make the streets safer for our children to enjoy fresh air and get much-needed exercise.
The limit could be a new safety measure or could be a replacement where road humps or other traffic calming installations have been removed.
Emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances are already exempt from speed limits so their journeys would not be hampered in any way.
Another advantage of a 20 mph limit is that much less petrol is needed to drive at a steady 20 than to keep slowing and accelerating, as many drivers do on roads with speed humps.
At a time when many children are being prevented from playing outside because their parents fear the potenial dangers, we should consider anything which can make the streets safer for our children to enjoy fresh air and get much-needed exercise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)