Says the Guardian. The full report is here (by the Tyndall follk) but the summary (by FOE/Coop) is here. There is a clear void between the scale of the problem and the actual policy mechanisms proposed well I can agree with that, but from there on…

“…the report says that 90% cuts are achievable if measures are taken within four years to stabilise emissions. Beyond 2010, it says, annual cuts of 9% will be needed for the next 20 years. If the measures are not introduced urgently, say the authors, much more drastic and much less manageable cuts will be needed later. The authors say that little new technology or investment in infrastructure will be needed to reduce emissions, apart from the development of hydrogen as a fuel, and carbon capture as a way to store carbon dioxide.”

And more along those lines. They seem to have all cars running on hydrogen (generated from roadside PV systems?) and carbon-capture frm power stations, both of which seem rather hopeful, as does 9%/year reductions.

As for “decrease the speed limit on motorways to 60mph” that was floated about a year ago (or was it just restrictiong people to actually obeying the current 70 mph limit?) and that got shot down quickly enough.


  1. #1 Davis

    What a coincidence, I was just thinking I could go for a nice word salad, with a random-capitalization vinaigrette.

    [If anyone is wondering about this comment, its a ref to the, errrm, over enthusiastic commentator I’ve just removed. Sorry -W]

  2. #2 Tim Worstall

    Worth noting that the report assumes no use of nuclear as the current generation of plants closes down. This may indeed happen but it’s a bit odd to base an entire report on that one point. At the very least they should have given us with and without a new generation of nukes.

    [Indeed it does… perhaps because it was commissioned by FOE (but then it would be nice to have that stated) -W]

  3. #3 Alastair McDonald

    There’s no point in factoring in nuclear power because all the uranium will have been used up by 2030. The report is nonsense anyway. The British government should be concentrationg on getting the US on board. Even if we in the UK had phased out all of our CO2 emissions, saving 150 MTonnes of C per year,
    the US, who increased their emissions by 1,580 – 1,414 = 166 MTonnes in the eight years beginning in 1995,
    would wipe out savings pretty quickly.

    It is pure hubris to believe that we in the UK can solve the problem solely by reducing our emissions.

  4. #4 Peter K. Anderson

    How could all the Uranium be used up by 2030, what nonsense. China has more Uranium than Australia, near all undeveloped whilst there is also further known resources in Africa, along with undeveloped resources in Australia. Infact development of Uranium extraction is ramping up every year, which staged openings planned it seems even past the ‘2030’ date. This supposed ‘Iranian all gone by 2030’ is simply more of the styled opinion seen in the ‘peak oil’ suppositions, and is no more realistic or TRUE that the ‘peak oil rhetoric’. All you need do is read the financial portions of various Newspapers and suitable publications to realise that complete vapidity in claims attempting to relate that ‘Uranium will be all gone by 2030’…

    There is neither anything to replace practically either Uranium Fuelled generation, expect Coal or Gas, as the actual performance of ‘renewable utilities’ is simply NOT able to meet the required levels of generation. It is not possible to base on OPINION only a Nation scale Generation and Distribution grid for Electrical Energy. It is NOT possible on observed REAL performance to use any combination of “Renewables” to act as ‘base load’ generation either’. I notice an attempt to mention Germany produces 10% of its national power from ‘renewables’, what was NOT mentioned was that the bulk remainder is produced from Uranium fuelled utilities, with dwindling use of Coal and Gas inline with internal supplies issues. France has produced over 50% 0f its Nation power from Uranium fuelled utilities for decades apparently. Nor can Coal/Gas utilities be removed, there is little apart from Uranium that can otherwise fuel the required production of Electricity. Certainly WIND FARMS cannot do so and are not capable regardless of OPINION to the contrary, this ascertained by observation of established systems indicated the REAL (lack) of ability for these Wind Farms. Wind farms producing a rated 20 MW input even less to the grid after rectification and so cannot be used to replace 1000MW inputs (from a single turbine) otherwise ‘not needing’ such rectification for placement to the Distribution Grid system.

    Biofuels are the fuel of the future, it is that Humanity has had the ‘technology of the future’ for near 100 years and has forgotten ‘the past’. There is no need for specific ‘new engine design’ even, the Turbine and ‘Diesel process’ are all in wide use AND have good multi-fuel (oil) abilities, even ethanol/methanol can be combusted. Notice the quote attributed to Rudolph Diesel from 1912:-

    [“The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in course of time as important as petroleum and the coal tar products of the present time.”]

    The ‘spark ignition process’ (the ‘petroleum using’ process) was only engineered as ‘compression process’ engines at the turn of the 20th Century where too large for use in small vehicles. The COMPRESSION based combustion process is very friendly to the Multifuel situation and can NOW be built small enough for inclusion into even private personal vehicles, so no longer is needed the petroleum using ‘spark ignition process’ Internal Combustion Engine. Australia isn’t running on a “sheep’s back” any longer, but in a ‘Diesel’ hauled trailer, and noticing transport mechanisms worldwide (the ‘Long Haul’ Truck, the Train and Maritime propulsion systems) it is generally realised that the ‘compression process’ engine is so deeply entrenched in the majority of use World Wide that bio-fuel oils (initially as supplemental) can on a GLOBAL basis reduce pollution and ALSO be used to power Electrical Generation whilst reducing particulate pollution by up to 70%.

    It is pointless to attempt to platform any shortage of either Uranium OR Fossil Oils to try to ‘bully opinion’ regarding either ‘greenhouse issues’ and the related ‘renewable platforming’ within ‘protective censorship’. The censorship is being enacted AGAINST the Public, who need only LOOK at the actualities, and such censorship is only to hide a lack of REALITY within the ‘greenhouse platform’ and those lobby platforms (e.g. the ‘renewable platform’) there-after attached.

    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.