• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Not As Environmentally Friendly As Promised

ULEZ might be but this doesn't show air pollution and it's effects a lie too.
It doesn't improve bad air quality. But bad air quality still exists. ULEZ being a fraud doesn't make air pollution and its effects one too.
 
Stormkhan said:
ULEZ might be but this doesn't show air pollution and it's effects a lie too.
It doesn't improve bad air quality. But bad air quality still exists. ULEZ being a fraud doesn't make air pollution and its effects one too.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with 'bad air quality being unhealthy' - I just think we shouldn't meekly accept a lie based on scant evidence, a lie which has been made not for the purposes of improving air quality but solely for the purpose of revenue-generation.
Facts (and the way they are used) matter.
 
Prospects for the green transition.

Episode 17 – How will Europe’s green transition impact employment?​

Published on: 22 November 2023

Climate change objectives and decarbonisation measures are vital for the future of Europe. But how will these objectives impact employment and the labour market? In this episode of the Eurofound Talks podcast series, Mary McCaughey speaks with Eurofound Senior Research Manager John Hurley about new research which shows a marginal increase in net employment from EU decarbonisation measures, but also potentially broad shifts in the labour market that could have a profound impact in several areas.

Podcast

Authors: Mary McCaughey, John Hurley.

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/...ll-europes-green-transition-impact-employment
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3582.jpeg
    IMG_3582.jpeg
    445.1 KB · Views: 6
Stormkhan said:
ULEZ might be but this doesn't show air pollution and it's effects a lie too.
It doesn't improve bad air quality. But bad air quality still exists. ULEZ being a fraud doesn't make air pollution and its effects one too.
Click to expand...
That is true. But a tremendous amount of work has gone on in the last 40 years to reduce pollution, both from vehicles and homes. Well, even longer. When did you last experience a smog in the UK? I can remember them from my youth - brown fog.

The worst pollution in a typical modern (post coal fires everywhere) city is/was from heavy diesel engines - they produce highly unpleasant hydrocarbons which are almost designed to stick to your lungs. I'm told its because the molecule is 'spiky' whatever that might mean.

I suspect even with coal fires the real problem was incomplete combustion. Home fires never get really hot enough and spew out sulphur and all sorts. In contrast steam engines operated correctly maintain a very high temperature in the fire and are relatively clean. If you see one belching black smoke it's being operated incorrectly. At one stage before the world became besotted with diesels there were even proposals to have the firing process computer controlled to maintain optimum combustion. Probably similar would be true of steam turbines in coal fired power stations.
 
I wonder how much pollution the mayor’s fireworks made compared to the cars that are charged £12.50 to enter any part of London?

(Also I want more drone action)
 
Cochise said:
That is true. But a tremendous amount of work has gone on in the last 40 years to reduce pollution, both from vehicles and homes. Well, even longer. When did you last experience a smog in the UK? I can remember them from my youth - brown fog.

The worst pollution in a typical modern (post coal fires everywhere) city is/was from heavy diesel engines - they produce highly unpleasant hydrocarbons which are almost designed to stick to your lungs. I'm told its because the molecule is 'spiky' whatever that might mean.

I suspect even with coal fires the real problem was incomplete combustion. Home fires never get really hot enough and spew out sulphur and all sorts. In contrast steam engines operated correctly maintain a very high temperature in the fire and are relatively clean. If you see one belching black smoke it's being operated incorrectly. At one stage before the world became besotted with diesels there were even proposals to have the firing process computer controlled to maintain optimum combustion. Probably similar would be true of steam turbines in coal fired power stations.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I worked on the railways and when I first worked there, there were still drivers who were once either the fire man or the driver. I remember one driver who had been a fire man explaining to me before leaving the sheds how he'd build up the bed of coal in the firebox in a particular way and wait till it glowed white before carefully adding more coal in exactly the right place and checking colour of the smoke from the engine. He said there should be virtually no smoke at all. Once that was achieved the driver would give two blasts on the whistle to the panel man (very local sidings signalman) which meant the steam train was ready to move.

I also remembering him saying that over the years he got to know different quirks of different steam trains of the same make and it was all about getting the maximum heat from the minimum amount of coal. It's sounded a very skilled job to me that required experience.

I've always thought that steam trains are very efficient using readily available resources that are both easy to source. Coal and water.

I watched a video a few years ago about these three blokes, all engineers and all steam train engineers, who one drunken evening down the pub, decided to build a modern working steam train. Fast forward many years, they eventually achieved their goal despite numerous set backs. During testing for running line worthiness and safety by HM Railways Inspectorate, which included modern pollution requirements, the pollution after the initial firing up was almost zero.

So why hasn't this technology been used on the railways?
 
kesavaross said:
I've always thought that steam trains are very efficient using readily available resources that are both easy to source. Coal and water.

I watched a video a few years ago about these three blokes, all engineers and all steam train engineers, who one drunken evening down the pub, decided to build a modern working steam train. Fast forward many years, they eventually achieved their goal despite numerous set backs. During testing for running line worthiness and safety by HM Railways Inspectorate, which included modern pollution requirements, the pollution after the initial firing up was almost zero.

So why hasn't this technology been used on the railways?
Click to expand...
Indeed...why.
Suppressed technology.
 
Yup.
There's so many abandoned and closed coal mines with stock still available - it's just out there for the taking.
Er ... hang on ... :evillaugh:
 
kesavaross said:
Interesting.

I worked on the railways and when I first worked there, there were still drivers who were once either the fire man or the driver. I remember one driver who had been a fire man explaining to me before leaving the sheds how he'd build up the bed of coal in the firebox in a particular way and wait till it glowed white before carefully adding more coal in exactly the right place and checking colour of the smoke from the engine. He said there should be virtually no smoke at all. Once that was achieved the driver would give two blasts on the whistle to the panel man (very local sidings signalman) which meant the steam train was ready to move.

I also remembering him saying that over the years he got to know different quirks of different steam trains of the same make and it was all about getting the maximum heat from the minimum amount of coal. It's sounded a very skilled job to me that required experience.

I've always thought that steam trains are very efficient using readily available resources that are both easy to source. Coal and water.

I watched a video a few years ago about these three blokes, all engineers and all steam train engineers, who one drunken evening down the pub, decided to build a modern working steam train. Fast forward many years, they eventually achieved their goal despite numerous set backs. During testing for running line worthiness and safety by HM Railways Inspectorate, which included modern pollution requirements, the pollution after the initial firing up was almost zero.

So why hasn't this technology been used on the railways?
Click to expand...
I think it is because, as in your example, it was a very skilled job. Train drivers and firemen less so, were the astronauts of their time -most schoolboys wanted to be an engine driver.
Add on the fact that the coal had to be good quality, the time it took the crew to set everything up and the discomfort and hard work driving an engine and you start to see why diesel or electric were preferred. Short ammount of training then sit in a warm cab holding a lever. Less skill involved and easier for the crew.
In terms of pollution, energy use, etc. I'm not sure. Electricity has to be generated diesel pollutes, coal has to be mined. Many places use wood burning steam locos but I don't think they are as efficient.
 
Tunn11 said:
I think it is because, as in your example, it was a very skilled job. Train drivers and firemen less so, were the astronauts of their time -most schoolboys wanted to be an engine driver.
Add on the fact that the coal had to be good quality, the time it took the crew to set everything up and the discomfort and hard work driving an engine and you start to see why diesel or electric were preferred. Short ammount of training then sit in a warm cab holding a lever. Less skill involved and easier for the crew.
In terms of pollution, energy use, etc. I'm not sure. Electricity has to be generated diesel pollutes, coal has to be mined. Many places use wood burning steam locos but I don't think they are as efficient.
Click to expand...
The training time needed for both steam and electric (and diesel) was about the same. I don't know about now as it's a long time since I left the railways. The 'driving of' is the easy part. It's what needs to be learnt to get to that point that is the hard part although electric, and as you say, is much simpler than steam to operate.

Apart from the mining and transporting of coal, a steam train is a self contained energy unit. Modern steam trains, what few there are, are highly efficient and all but pollution free. With electric trains there is the generating of the electricity and the maintenance of the infrastructure that goes with that and also the overhead wires, third rail, etc.

I think it's hard to weigh up which is more energy efficient. The pro net zero and green lobby seem hell bent on stifling anything that doesn't fit the box ticking agenda while the truth of what is actually environmental friendly or not is getting harder and harder to discern.
 
Last edited:
kesavaross said:
The training time needed for both steam and electric (and diesel) was about the same. I don't know about now as it's a long time since I left the railways. The 'driving of' is the easy part. It's what needs to be learnt to get to that point that is the hard part although electric, and as you say, is much simpler than steam to operate.

Apart from the mining and transporting of coal, a steam train is a self contained energy unit. Modern steam trains, what few there are, are highly efficient and all but pollution free. With electric trains there is the generating of the electricity and the maintenance of the infrastructure that goes with that and also the overhead wires, third rail, etc.

I think it's hard to weigh up which is more energy efficient. The pro net zero and green lobby seem hell bent on stifling anything that doesn't fit the box ticking agenda while the truth of what is actually environmental friendly or not is getting harder and harder to discern.
Click to expand...
You're right. I doubt that any of the green lobby would ever admit to steam being efficient whatever the evidence.

I didn't realise that the training periods for steam/electric were about the same although I imagine the footplate of a steam engine was less comfortable than an electric loco's cab. Hard work stoking the fire and generally open to the elements although I guess technology for steam engines would have moved on from the 1950s had they been kept in service.

IIRC "Tornado" was built to an old design of a 1960s or earlier LNER/BR steam engine but some of the later European and US engines looked as if they may have been more comfortable to operate.

The steam engine wins hands down as a charismatic, almost living machine though and some are still working at 100 years old or thereabouts that has to have some green credentials.
 
It can be recycled, but it requires effort (and the generation of more heat and CO2).
Only certain plastics are easily recycled, others require a bit of ingenuity. I've sat on park benches made of melted plastic bags, for example.
 
Tunn11 said:
I doubt that any of the green lobby would ever admit to steam being efficient whatever the evidence.
Click to expand...
No engineer or physicist would 'admit' that a steam engine was more efficient than diesel or electric, because it has no basis in science.

The most efficient steam railway locomotive ever built had a thermal efficiency of less than 20%; this contrasts with a typical diesel with a thermal efficiency of 20%-30%, and considerable savings in operational availability. Availability is the amount of time required for a locomotive to enter service every day, pull a revenue-earning train, and be disposed of at the end of the working diagram. Diesels can be started up and run trains for a much larger portion of their working day; you don't have to light the fire, raise cold water to boiling point, and remove combustion products at the end of the day. Probably the most 'available' steam locos are those that use liquid fuels, but these produce uncombusted hydrocarbons just like a diesel.

And a diesel multiple unit (which describes almost every non-electric passenger train in the UK today, except the failed Transpennine experiment) can run equally efficiently in either direction without the turnround time and runround facilities most steam engine traction systems require.

I worked in the railway industry too, with plenty of old steam drivers; they loved the things, for the most part, but the vast steam loco sheds are with locos standing around raising steam are a thing of the past. They did mention the difference between the filthy clagg that comes out of diesels and the relatively clean smoke that came out of steamers. But the cleanest steam engine exhaust is still full of carbon dioxide.

The ideal would be to convert all the UK lines to electric operation, which has a thermal efficiency far in advance of diesel, let alone steam, and the motive power units can be much lighter because they don't need to carry their own fuel with them. Transmitted power always wins over locomotive designs that need to carry their own fuel - a combustion locomotive engine not only needs to pull the train, but it must pull its own fuel (and in the case of a steam locomotive, carry thousands of gallons of water for boiling as well). Electric trains can be, and are, increasingly powered by nuclear-produced energy or renewables, cutting down carbon production significantly, and hopefully, this trend will continue.
 
Last edited:
Mythopoeika said:
It can be recycled, but it requires effort (and the generation of more heat and CO2).
Only certain plastics are easily recycled, others require a bit of ingenuity. I've sat on park benches made of melted plastic bags, for example.
Click to expand...

The video breaks it down, the recycling symbol became copyright free in 1970, the versions we see on plastics with numbers in them are "resin identification numbers" which tell you which type of plastic they are and are designed to be assumed to denote the object is recyclable. Whether this is true or not. I think there are seven numbers and only two are widely recyclable and others not at all. Some types can only be recycled twice.

As you say, recycling in itself is energy intensive and polluting.
 
Ogdred Weary said:
The video breaks it down, the recycling symbol became copyright free in 1970, the versions we see on plastics with numbers in them are "resin identification numbers" which tell you which type of plastic they are and are designed to be assumed to denote the object is recyclable. Whether this is true or not. I think there are seven numbers and only two are widely recyclable and others not at all. Some types can only be recycled twice.

As you say, recycling in itself is energy intensive and polluting.
Click to expand...
It also depends on what you mean by recycling of plastic.
If you intend to take discarded plastic, shred it into pellets and re-use it in injection moulding machines, this may not be possible with some plastics. There are only so many times you can do this before you get molecular breakdown and the brittleness of old plastic shows up.
However, if you take that plastic and shove it into a big mould and bake it, it may be possible to make a thing with it (as I described in my earlier post, I've seen park benches made of melted polythene bags).
To reiterate my earlier point, brittleness and degradation of the used plastic are the limiting factors for most plastics - which I would guess is the main reason why they aren't considered suitable for recycling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top