 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The problem with Nuclear Power is not the reactors - it's the waste that is produced. Burying it in a hole in the ground in the remotest part of the country and hoping for the best for 10,000years is not a solution. I think the Scottish Executive is right at this stage to be saying "no" rather than "never" because of the lack of a long term waste strategy.
With regards the driving the car to CairnGorm Mountain from Glasgow, it is a distance of 140miles. The nearest airport to CairnGorm with flights to Glasgow is Aberdeen, 90miles away from CairnGorm Mountain! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The problem with Nuclear Power is not the reactors - it's the waste that is produced. Burying it in a hole in the ground in the remotest part of the country and hoping for the best for 10,000years is not a solution. |
Maybe not - but why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
If you were to believe the worst of the globle warming warning, this planet will become almost unlivable in a matter of decades if we continue to burn oil.
But we're saying "no" to nuclear power plant because it produces a waste that would become a problem a few hundred/thousand years from now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Boeing's dreamliner should be taxed extra because it comes from Chicago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone seen Inconvenient Truth?...it does make you stop to think about what we are doing to the world
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The target date for cleaning up Dounreay is now 2036 or something apparently. It was 2100 initially. 20% of the Caithness workforce rely on Dounreay for employment. Dounreay is over 50 years old - built at a time when people didn't really know what pollution was compared with today. It doesn't follow that nuclear reactors built now would pose the same problems as Dounreay has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
This was all described wonderfully by Brian Aldiss in his book Hothouse published in 1962.
The plants will take over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| ..........The notorious waste shaft at Dounreay with wonderful cocktail of radioactive waste, fuel rods (unknown quantity) and chemical soup (reciepe unknown - but a chemical explosion blew the top of the shaft in the 70s) is the prime example of why!......... |
But we are not now (to say the obvious) in the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| ..........The notorious waste shaft at Dounreay with wonderful cocktail of radioactive waste, fuel rods (unknown quantity) and chemical soup (reciepe unknown - but a chemical explosion blew the top of the shaft in the 70s) is the prime example of why!......... |
But we are not now (to say the obvious) in the 1970s. |
Although Sam Tyler has just gone back to 1973 again, after realising that 2007 is full of mumbo jumbo shite speak
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| ..........The notorious waste shaft at Dounreay with wonderful cocktail of radioactive waste, fuel rods (unknown quantity) and chemical soup (reciepe unknown - but a chemical explosion blew the top of the shaft in the 70s) is the prime example of why!......... |
But we are not now (to say the obvious) in the 1970s. |
In under two decades the Dounreay waste shaft exploded - the bury the waste in the ground option requires it be secure for 10,000years. Luck not judgement has got us through 30years more without a repeat or worse incident with that shaft.
It will take years to go through the stages of cleaning up that shaft, but despite the incident in 1977, we've stockpiled 30years more nuclear waste and still don't as a nation have a long term strategy for managing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That ... as I understand it (as a non-scientist and layman) is the situation.
As Winterhighland suggests, the waste problem is something the bright clean scientists and engineers of the nuclear industry never seem to have a solution to. "Just bury it" isn't a solution.
Having grown up in the most wasteful and polluting generation of human beings since we evolved, I'd like to leave a cleaner and safer world to my kids. It must be a world in which the activities of the human race are in harmony with other life-forms, not a threat to them.
Otherwise we're all done for anyway.
There's no reason why this objective shouldn't start with the ski industry, and a big clean-up of our impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| There's no reason why this objective shouldn't start with the ski industry, |
Plenty of reasons why dealing with any sub-sector of the holiday trade (including skiing) is not a good place to start, the main one being that decimating the skiing industry to follow a green agenda will make not a discernible difference to carbon emissions but will have a greatly detrimental effect on those people who actually go skiing. Tackle the problem I say, don't fiddle around the edges of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Sorry, Rob, there are no cop-outs here. Everyone's in this mess, and everyone's a part of getting out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Sorry, Rob, there are no cop-outs here. Everyone's in this mess, and everyone's a part of getting out of it. |
And I'm happy to share the pain if it makes a positive impact on the problem. What I'm not prepared to do is to significantly affect my lifestyle in a negative way if it achieves nothing other than make the Hairshirt Tendency feel good about themselves. I'm broadly sympathetic to the climate change lobby, but making token gestures which make no significant contribution to the problem but simply inflct pain on people is the quickest way to lose that sympathy vote (which is exactly what this thread is doing for me, BTW).
David, I think you're probably right in that it's everyone's mess, all I'm saying is that everyone should deal with it not just people who go skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
So someone else should jump first?
I don't agree that pollution control involves decimating the ski industry. It means different ways of travelling, and other measures that can make the activity more benign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Yeah, let's get the government to force the travel industry to scrap all cheap flights. Skiing will then become the preserve of the rich again. And us poor people can go back to sitting on the local beach. Yep, the world will become a better place for all of us.
Meanwhile, people will continue to use electricity and gas to heat their homes and cook, people will continue to drive to work, businessmen will continue to fly away for meetings, people will continue to drive to shops, industry will continue to poolute in order to keep up with the demands of the population. And out of the billions of people living in the world a fraction of a percent of the population will have had their main source of skiing pleasure removed.
Pollution is a problem that concerns all of us, but trying to solve the problem by making a start at curtailing one activity will not make a jot of difference. I believe that the impact of most individuals on climate change could be very very small although the governments and many individuals/groups use gross exageration to scare us into thinking we as individuals are the problem, and therefore these governments gain greater control over our individual lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
That's one way of seeing the role of governments, but there has to be some means of collective action if everyone believes the problem is real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
So someone else should jump first?
|
It's not about who/what jumps first, it's about taking action that makes a significant difference to carbon emissions. If it doesn't make a significant difference (and the ski industry acting alone will not) it is by definition tokenism, and that should be avoided at all costs in my opinion.
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
I don't agree that pollution control involves decimating the ski industry. It means different ways of travelling, and other measures that can make the activity more benign. |
You think that there is enough rail capacity to cope with all the passengers who would be taxed out of the sky? I don't think there is anywhere near sufficient capacity to provide alternative means of getting around Europe if there were to be a significant reduction in air travel, so a decimation of skier numbers is probably accurate in my opinion. So all skiers should be very worried by what you advocate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ... but there has to be some means of collective action if everyone believes the problem is real. |
So why are you advocating that the ski industry acts alone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's playing with words, isn't it? The ski community comprises a very large number of people, in the industry and outside it, many of whom have an interest in preserving the climate for future generations. It's best that communities, rather than governments, act. But governments will obviously act if lesser collectives don't.
Rob, you're suggesting that other industries aren't very busy addressing this problem. The ski industry just seems to be evading it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
That's playing with words, isn't it? The ski community comprises a very large number of people, in the industry and outside it, many of whom have an interest in preserving the climate for future generations. It's best that communities, rather than governments, act. But governments will obviously act if lesser collectives don't.
|
The ski industry is very small, even when compared to the leisure industry as a whole never mind global activity like trade, commerce and population requirements for energy, food, etc. Thinking that small collectives and communities can realistically make a difference is not being realistic in my opinion. The nature of the problem will require multi-governmental action.
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Rob, you're suggesting that other industries aren't very busy addressing this problem. The ski industry just seems to be evading it. |
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. What other leisure industry is talking about taxing people out of the sky and banning further development so that activity becomes the preserve of the wealthy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
In what way will it become the preserve of the wealthy? Skiing started with people hiking up local hills, at very little expense.
Modern-day tourist-skiers can get to where they want to be by burning far less fuel.
I think you're mounting a 'let's do nothing' argument, expecting governments to lay down the law ... which is, of course, what they will probably do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I don't agree that pollution control involves decimating the ski industry. It means different ways of travelling, and other measures that can make the activity more benign. |
What different means of travelling would be involved and what fuel is involved in such travel?
What other measures would make skiing more benign?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
In what way will it become the preserve of the wealthy? Skiing started with people hiking up local hills, at very little expense.
Modern-day tourist-skiers can get to where they want to be by burning far less fuel.
I think you're mounting a 'let's do nothing' argument, expecting governments to lay down the law ... which is, of course, what they will probably do. |
Simple supply and demand. If the supply is restricted the price will go up.
Yes I'm expecting governments to take the lead. The scale of the problem and the nature of potential solutions are such that I don't think there is any alternative to governments taking the lead. Do you think a bunch of skiers could establish a global carbon market, or mandate increasing efficiency at power stations, or fund research into viable alternative energy supplies, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
In what way will it become the preserve of the wealthy? Skiing started with people hiking up local hills, at very little expense.
Modern-day tourist-skiers can get to where they want to be by burning far less fuel.
I think you're mounting a 'let's do nothing' argument, expecting governments to lay down the law ... which is, of course, what they will probably do. |
Train to the Alps - £200/person + £150-£200 connections (£1350 to £1400 tot for the 6 of us)
Plane to the Alps - £200/person + £150-£200 connections (£1350 to £1400 tot for the 6 of us)
My 'bus to the Alps - £50/person incl connections (£300 tot for the 6 of us)
We choose to fly as it's quicker than driving. But what would happen if the flights prices went up by 50%? Many of us woiuld no longer be able to afford the flying option. So people would be forced into either train or driving. Now would the train prices remain where they are? Or would the increase in demand for the limited number of train places encourage the train operators to increase their fares to take advantage? Or would the increase in demand somehow produce a lot more trains, a lot more places and subsequently cheaper fares? Unless the train fares fall substantially then my second option is car. I wonder how my fuel use per person in the car compares with the fuel use per person in the plane? And I wonder, if everyone else starts going by car, how the resorts would cope?
But if the train places became much more numerous, and the fares substantially increased, then my secodn option would be train. But this improvement in the train option should come before forcing us all out of the sky so that we WANT to go by train. I could choose now to go by train in the belief that it's the green option and will save the world, but there's more to it than getting from some vague place in London to some vague place in the Alps. I've got Gatwick 20 minutes up the road. Little fuel use required to get there, quick and easy. If I go by train I've got to spend at least 2 or 3 hours getting my family of 6 from where I live, into Brighton, then halfway across London to find the euro star and put up with many hours of moaning on the way down through France. This is not an attractive option.
It's the same story with commuting - one of the big problems is the number of people who want to drive from town to town. if they had a train service that they WANTED to use and was better than their cars then more people would use it out of choice. But the government does it all back bottom about face, and tries to FORCE people by taxing higher into an option that isn't seen as comfortable, practical, reliable etc. And the government ultimately makes money out of the taxing and scares people into believing that this is what they need to do or we are ultimately doomed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
| Do you think a bunch of skiers could establish a global carbon market, or mandate increasing efficiency at power stations, or fund research into viable alternative energy supplies, etc, etc. |
The group of skiers who could afford to fund research wouldn't be doing so anyway - they would be off enjoy empty slopes as they'll be the wealthy ones who can still afford to fly to the slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
David Goldsmith, I disagree with your headline as it is misleading.
Several ski resorts are powered by renewable energy - whether that is solar, wind or hydro. I believe that is an attempt to reduce their impact regarding climate change (although nay-sayers will argue that it's just marketing spin, but they'd argue that black was white if it supported their veiwpoint  )
See here for more details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
My French electric bill breaks down how much of my consumption was from renewable sources (mainly nuclear) with a lower carbon footprint than. IIRC the last bill said that 82% was from renewable sources. I'm 'greener' here in Les Arcs than I am in London.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
D G Orf, are they actually going to build the new reactors then?
i am a huge proponent of nuclear power, look at the japanese and french. they have a safe electricity grid that isnt beholdent to fossile fuels. As a stop gap measure for the next 50 -100 years why dont we build a load of reactors in the UK and coupled with some low emission fossile fuel plants coudl make a real impact on lowering emmissions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
skimottaret, well if I understand it correctly they propose to build a test reactor first with construction of various test parts later this year, once they've built the reactor and proved that everything works the idea is apparently to build many more, possibly 20 or 30 more arround the world
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
To many the skiing industry is region regeneration, employment, economic well being of the area etc. To kill skiing would kill many communes and the Alpes.
People wanting to be green can stop skiing. It is their choice. Why impose it?
It is totally illogical to think skiing plays a significant part of the climate changes. Many chairlifts, mountain railways, godolas and cable cars are there for the summer season too. There are significant number of non-skiing vistors using the same facilities in the winter too.
Skiers may be among the first to "feel" the effect of climate change but that is out of proportion to think every skier can solve the climate change problem by destroying their equipment (but not burning them as that would create more CO2) to satisfy David Goldsmith here.
May be we should ask this question.
Now that the skiing industry is doing nothing. What steps would David Goldsmith take himself so that he is seen doing "something"?
He has reported a British skier got killed by hitting a tree in aCanadian resort. Would making every skier wearing a helmet avoid such death? Better still let us chop down every tree in the resort so that there is none to hit against with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Changing tack slightly, did anyone see the Horizon programme last night? It looks like a few nations are (and have been for some time) making plans to actively mine the moon. The target is a particular type of Helium gas that will enable nuclear fusion to be a viable power source. Apparently, if it can successfully be mined then it could make current power sources virtually obsolete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
saikee,
| Quote: |
| Would making every skier wearing a helmet avoid such death? |
No, but making every skier wear a helmet would mean a big increase in the manufacture of helmets and hence increased pollution leading to further increase global warming. Then when all the snow is gone, there will be X million surplus helmets floating around that could then be turned into pellets and burned in electricity plants that now have no fossil fuels available to them as the reserves have been depleted due to the non-implementation of clean nuclear reactors.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 11-04-07 15:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Isn't it better to let stupid skiers not wear helmets, then hopefully that will weed them out of the gene pool... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Skiing will then become the preserve of the rich again. And us poor people can go back to sitting on the local beach. Yep, the world will become a better place for all of us.
|
"Sitting on the local beach"?
What about places that doesn't have much of "local beach"? I know. They'll just go back to making more babies!!! How much less/more carbon footprint THAT would make???
Why do China and India's population grow so much faster than the west? Because they don't ski (or windsurf, or mountain bike, for that matter)! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, I have a suggestion for your personal contribution to CO2 reduction. Instead of raising your hobby horses ad infinitum on web forums, write to the newspapers instead - on paper. Whole forests will have to be planted to support your effort, veritably sucking CO2 from the sky. Your carbon-rich letters will be shredded and carted off to the safety of landfill. After many millenia, they will become compressed, and might become useful fuel for our remote descendants on the verge of a new ice age. Who knows, your scribbles may become fossilised, and posterity may learn of obsessions prevailing in the early 21st century.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Geez, you'd think from this thread that the world ski industry certainly Alpine Ski Industry exists for and is entirely dependent on the UK market.
As for flying, I am all for taxing short haul cheap flights out of the sky. The shorter a flight is the more damaging and pointless it is, the vast majority of fuel is used getting a plane up and back down so it makes sense to keep aviation for what it is essential for, long distance travel where there is no realistic alternative - trans ocean rail travel ain't happening any time soon! There really should be no need for domestic (plane) flights in a country the size of the UK.
One reason that governments haven't moved on taxing aviation fuel is that air transport is a fairly good cop-out, it avoids having to invest in point to point infrastructure, but I think it's only a matter of time before aviation fuel is taxed and rightly so.
Perhaps a solution to short haul flights will be a return to the airship, these can now take of and land under their own power/control in the sameway a plane can, but in less space and more places, airports, flat ground, sea, lakes etc and do it all with a fraction of the fuel and noise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winterhighland, Agreed, shorter flights more damaging per mile travelled than long flights. Exactly the same with car journeys. And when I've been oop north I've never travelled by plane. But I also wonder, what is the energy requirement for building and operating the infrastructure required for effective and convenient rail travel? There be a lot of digging machinery required, and a lot of metal in them there tracks and cables, and plastic, and a lot of concrete in them railway sleepers, and a lot of damage to the local environment, and a lot of electricity (derived from fossil fuels no doubt) to power everything including the trains. It would be interesting to know how long it would take for the benefits to be realised.
A quick aside.....I don't know if anyone saw the report on the news last night concerning the Inuit? They are worried about how global warming could affect them as time goes by. There was mention of the glaciers retreating, but then they inadvertently showed the real cause of the problem. There was a group of Inuit there chipping great big chunks of ice off to take them home to melt for drinking water!!! WTF is that about then? Surely they would be better off leaving the glaciers alone and importing Evian or something.
And another quick aside....the Kiwis are worried about the shrinking of the Franz Josef glacier. The reason they are worried about it is because is a major tourist attraction that people travel to NZ to see. Well, the way I see it, perhaps it's all these people travelling to NZ to see this glacier that is causing the glacier to melt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
