REview - Movie - 'Trashed' - More clever than wise

That last line is not a critique of the movie.

It's a quote from it:

"The difference between the clever man and the wise man is that the clever man can extricate himself from difficult and intricate situations that the wise man would never have gotten into in the first place."

Author: Jewish proverb

I had been invited to our local Ross theatre (rediscovering what a great little venue it is), by a local media baron, and approached with some misgivings, not least because I also dragged along 'she who must be entertained'.

Me because I have not had the best experiences with such documentaries, and on the missus' behalf because, well, if you are not a bit of an eco-activist, the subject matter does not exactly equate to the latest Twilight. And one and a half hrs plus on Trash talk is a fair old whack.

But I need not have worried. That time passed quickly and was well spent... for both of us, and I think the rest of the audience, which I was thrilled to discover included 'Mrs. Green' of My Zero Waste and her family. Their presence in part being explained by her having a featured role as a zero waste advocate.

However, in doing justice to an objective review, it is not a movie that will be everyone's idea of a good night out, or to their tastes. I think you would need to be interested in the topic, and happy to see your money going to such an exercise in necessary awareness.

But even if it doesn't appeal as a movie experience, I'd say catching it if and when it is on TV, or when the DVD is released, is a worthy consideration.

There's stuff worth knowing, and it is presented well.

The script is solid, and not preachy, and with a presenter/VO the calibre of Jeremy Irons, and music backdrop by Vangelis, the audio-visual experience is top notch.

Though the full HD impact of a 40m wall of rubbish calving into the sea at the East end of the Med is pretty revolting.

This was one of the biggest out of control land dumps there is, at Sidon, and though vile had an awesomely fascinating aspect to it too. It was like those rock strata you see science types getting excited about to explain dinosaur extinctions or tsunamis.

Which is apt, because in a way it is a waste mountain version of the cr*p 'we' throw out over the decades... centuries. No further back than that, as it was pointed out that it's really only in the last hundred years that we moved from 'natural' materials that degraded 'naturally' on disposal to those that do not, if at all. Or, if they do, into something not nice at all.

This was a thread throughout, and was indeed an area that informed even me, when I thought I was quite on top of the messy aspects of human imposition on this planet.

The expert 'talking heads' referred to were very good, and unlike many advocates came across as reasoned and well-informed. And realistic.

But what they had to share, and show, was not too palatable, even as one sits in a comfy cinema in the well-regulated West. Lured into a false sense on security by 3rd world horror stories, I was unprepared to what was closer to home for comfort.

And Mr. Irons was a great guide in complement. Not too earnest if passionate, and even cynical and self-mocking with a wicked sense of humour on occasion to lighten what too easily could become a voyage into darkness if not careful.

But careful we need to be. I was pretty aware of many of the issues around biodegradability (and will need to revisit my open-ended investigation on this topic that I started a long time ago), but the microparticle 'soup' that plastics which enter the eco-system create was really horrifying to be reminded about. And while 'witches' knickers bags are the stuff of many an M&S/Daily Mail PR stunt, this is an area I am much more concerned about.

Also incineration, especially the so-called newly-rebranded 'Energy from waste' variety.

The theory is good, and the intentions of some noble. But I now have serious outstanding concerns on the practice... and the intentions of others.

One look at the news these days shows the 'authorities' are not always smart or to be trusted, especially when in thrall of big business or under fiscal pressures.

The movie spent a lot of time on what comes out of the chimney, and it's not pretty if the thing is not set up right and run right... including changing filters that are needed to meet safety levels, but get bunged up pronto and need replacing a lot... at vast cost.

I was reminded of our 'bagless' Dyson vacuum, that was to 'save' us a fortune, but whose EPA filter ran up such a replacement bill we got rid of it. So too with such facilities. They cost a lot to build, and more to run. And if the money gets tight, they either run dirty or they shut down.

And if they don't shut down and run dirty... you don't want to be near. And by 'near', I mean on the planet. Like plastic micro/nano particles, what goes up, or down, or in the water, goes around... everywhere.

A large chunk of what is in there that shouldn't be are dioxins, and these are not nice. At all.

A distressing part of the narrative was necessary, and this was a visit to Vietnam, to see the results of dioxin contamination as a result of the Agent Orange spraying during the war there.

Now this was concentrated hugely (and there may be other factors), but even after all this time there seems no doubt that this stuff is not great to get into the food chain, and especially by the time it works up to apex predators... like us. 

There was a very nasty scene in a pathology lab in Vietnam to illustrate the one way humans, or at least half of us, can purge out bodies of dioxins, and that is from Mother to unborn child. If you watch... be forewarned, and prepared.

Yet even here in the UK there are 'officials' who at best seem... too comfortable with reassurances from those they'd prefer to hear from than those who don't suit.

And with our headlines currently full of breaches of trust from those in authority... and even complicit media driven more by agendas than professional integrity... I tend to err on the precautionary principle advocated by the Professors and experts we were presented with throughout.

And it's not like some 'we're all doomongering' efforts where the pulls are economic vs. environment; there are compelling triple bottom line arguments in mitigation to be had too. Win-win-wins abounding, just like those we try and push here at Junkk.com or with RE:tie. It doesn't have to be a stark choice between living in a cave or dying a horrible slow death.

If I was to offer a critique, it would be that the movie was 80% problem, and 20% more positive. Though the positives were inspiring. I was thrilled to see a section on the inspirational unpackaged concept, for instance, and especially to hear their spokeslady talk not just in savings terms, but also... shock... making a profit!

But it is necessary to grasp and appreciate that there are some ideals that reality may not allow. Population densities, budgets... time.

These are all vast, intermingled issues that are hugely complex and need to be discussed as part of the whole 'green' deal (and another time than here). And too often this rather key fact gets lost in focusing on one issue. Focus is good, but it can lead to dogma, and dogma can create pockets, and pockets competing for attention can mean inconvenient truths that don't suit get ignored to push the passion, more than being aware of the pragmatic actualities.

The movie made me realise how easy it is to get caught up on one's own little area of concern, and perhaps ignore the bigger picture and how others in theirs need to be related to. But on the whole I felt a strong sense of vindication with what we at Junkk are trying to do, and how it can't hurt and hopefully can help. If in a small way. But it also made me realise that the movie addressed reduction (which has limits), and recycling (which has 'issues') and disposal (which has huge consequences), but barely even tipped a hat at the potential of reuse... especially designed-in reuse, or repair.

Now these are niche and poor cousins, but with a bit of imagination and will, they could become just as big as solutions... and money-making ones too. I hate to say it, but a lot of effort does seem focused on areas of dealing with waste that are now profitable but maybe not that great on enviROI and hence as good for the planet as often claimed. Box-tickers and target-setters do like such things as rates and bonusses can be easily related.

Yes, sending a container with bales of compressed milk bottles to be 'recycled' is better than sending it empty... but what about the possibility they don't need 'processing' at all, and get sent to a place where they can become a new, long-lasting product in their own right? The movie well showed that the resilience of these new waste materials makes them pretty effective in aggressive environments. Why not apply them rather than keep looking for ways to deal with them, if not having them is simply not a consumer society-realistic option?

I noticed that a member of the Rausing family had helped with the funding.

Maybe Tetrapak would be open to an approach from Junkk.com or RE:tie again on the back of this movie, when any tries before have not got past the gatekeepers who can often talk a good tale, but end up failing to walk quite as well in complement?

If they did, maybe together we can find ways to be both clever... and wise?

Caption: By coincidence, in chatting with said media baron last week, I happened to stumble across an experiment I had bee conducting, namely leaving a bio-degradable shopping bag to do its thing. Clearly, after a few years, it is on its way, but if non longer a turtle-choking threat, those little pieces are still not very benign. 

ADDENDUM 1 - In researching this further, and in wishing all on the US Eastern seaboard well post-Sandy, I found this interesting:

http://www.lastnightsgarbage.com/?p=2890


‘New York City is an island built on garbage. Dutch settlers constructed much of the southern tip of Manhattan by extending the shoreline with landfill.’

ADDENDUM 2 - A URL of a new post about the issue closer to home:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20154032

ADDENDUM 3 - In compelment to the Energy from Waste segment:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680763/sweden-needs-more-trash-because-it-has-turned-all-its-got-into-energy

ADDENDUM 4 - an interview with the producer by the packaging industry:

http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/environment/trashed-challenges-world-to-change-habits-profile/

Or.... reuse?

Getting a bit frustrating banging on about other alternatives, but as Aunty has investigated...

Throw-away Britain

Service? Or meeting a target?

Addendum (from a thread):

'...this "empowerment" is a growing trend. Doing it yourself whilst the people that you pay to deliver a 'service' spend all their time "incentivising you" with chip and bin fines, cameras and ASBOS..'

[This] horrifying bin scheme is a manifestation of this "empowerment" - bullshit of course and the worst of all worlds. You pay for the service, do it yourself and have to endure bullying from the state.'

As pithy a summary as I have seen of how these new 'initiatives' are concocted, mis-promoted and, if history is judge, will be more effective at generating money then helping my kids' planetary futures.

I have to put my hand up and say I am a believer in some sort of incentive-based schemes that are, effectively, pay as you go/throw. But only if this contribution by the consumer/rate payer in money and effort is rewarded with consequent reductions in related areas.

Mind you, I was a young home owner who though the Poll Tax seemed relatively fair. But I guess that was 'different'.

How times have changed, and changed views.

Newsnight - An exchange that seems pertinent for now.

Waste not, want not.

Well put.

Reduce: don't buy so much tat in the first place - Agree, though being told to spend like there's no tomorrow is a wee bit contradictory at the 'mo.

Recycle: encourage easier and more widespread recycling facilities - Agree. Plus much better national connectivity, from logistics to communications. It doesn't help that I am hearing that recyclate is deemed to still count on EU targets as 'recycling' even if its quality is useless to those seeking to make something of it. Or see budgets of multimillion £'s being sunk in Charlotte St or SoHo to create 'awareness' levels that tick boxes and add to the bonuses of the quango directors and Ministers who commission them. This seems a direct conflict of interest.

Re-use: think of ways in which the packaging etc. can be re-used about your home. Agree. Especially if it can be designed-in to be second used. I might suggest that one, a namesake, exists already: Junkk.com

There are others of course, though mainly in the area of redirecting away from the landfill. Hence well of value. These are linked here

Alas, we seem to be losing that Blue Peter spirit that was so much a part of my childhood.

FWIW, Junkk.com has been described as 'Blue Peter on steroids'

With luck, by getting back to fun and reward over guilt, thread, nanny and fine, the general public may yet see merit, and profit, in getting back to make and mend. Especially in these crunchier, more eco-concerned times.

And maybe business will follow too. Who knows, the government and its various organs of efficiency might get on board, too.

What's better than waste? Duplicated waste!

Government ignores energy-efficiency policy

It would be interesting, if likely depressing, to get a handle on the sheer number of well staffed gov. departmental and quango empires there are, plus massive associated comms budgets, deployed in 'environmental' pursuits, and what the actual enviROI the public and planet derives from them. Especially, as suggested here, many are either overlapping or even competing.

Whitehall could save millions on offices

There's that special word again, 'could'. Isn't it amazing how often it crops up in headlines?

However, in this case, as reported on epolitix.com, I suspect that they probably couldn't. Why? Because they would set up a special project, staffed by innumerable representatives of the government's best super-pensioned, unaccountable, jobs-worth, empty-suited and highly paid staff (not counting the super expensive consultants that they would undoubtedly call in for help). This little lot would almost certainly blow more in undertaking the project than it could ever save.

(Oh dear, I've just used the 'could' word myself; I must slap myself on the wrist.)

Another failing government initiative?

The Carbon Trust was set up by the government some five years ago with a target remit to reduce UK carbon emissions some 4.4 million tons by 2010.

So far it doesn't seem to be doing too well, as reported by epolitix.com.

Oh well, it only received funding of £100 million last year. Perhaps it needs a funding increase?

ADDENDUM - Junkk Male

Sorry, I had to leap in on the page here. This is EXACTLY what I have been banging on about.

I don't dispute there is 'some' call for 'some' support of 'some' initiatives, but what the hell is the actual enviROI+ to the planet and our kids of such as this amount of money going to guys like these... and countless others... to blow on....what!????

Just think what could have been done with £100M in tangibles as opposed to endless pointless ads in the Sundays and every banner ad I can think of.

If I had run my media spend like this I'd have been busted to the mailroom!!!!

From the BBC to here, the word 'Trust' is fast becoming shorthand for anything you should do but..

Here's one I saw earlier that might not make the programme...

... or the front page of the Indy, either: Reducing food packaging will not solve waste problem

A bit of pragmatism at last from our left mouth:right mouth government/quango/media organs? Well, 'an official' at least, though Defra’s 'head of sustainable development' Ms. Bronwen Jones sounds pretty high up the tree to me!

However I must say that, again, the headline is a tad misleading. Of course reducing some food packaging can, will and should reduce unnecessary waste and lead to an even better enviROI+.

A timely reminder in light of the Love Food:Hate Waste initiative now under way?

Now who has being banging on, for how long, in precisely these terms: 'The complexity is on who really has the power here? Retailers are key influencers but they claim that they are just driven by what consumers want. Consumers often claim that their behaviour is unduly influenced by retailers and they are reluctant to act without Government taking the first step and taking the lead. Government wants to be responsive to people but does not want to be accused of being a nanny state. There is a real tension between the three way relationship; the reality is that all these actors have some type of leadership role to play.”?

Guess that's why I get the big bucks... er...

MRW - Food and drink manufacturers pledge to cut packaging and food waste - just hope it's in the right places and for the right reasons

Rubbish. Is as does

Sorting our rubbish

'I have long believed that paying for the rubbish we throw away is the right approach.'

And I agree. As one who throws very little out by making stuff out of what doesn't need to go in the bin/landfill, I'd really like to get rewarded by a rate reduction for doing so. Much as I'd like a water meter to see a reduction in my water rates for not flushing the loo just now.

Thing is, just as those two dots have not been connected by the populace, they have by the guys in charge. And they are old enough to recall the fun that was Poll Tax. I didn't have a problem with that 'pay by use' notion either. Quite a few did, though. And from interesting 'sides' of the current 'divide', I'll be bound.

T'other night I heard an honest pol speak. The Cabinet Member for the Environment for my county. We will not be getting bi-weekly collections. Why? Not any great eco-reason, but because his fellow councillors and he want to keep their jobs. I'm guessing chip and bin are not in the offing either, then.

Oh well. The rest of your piece is, of course, worthy of note.

'But we will need clear central policy, good communications and more enforcement to ensure they have the desired effect.' Ok. We're screwed.

Not very nice work. But very getting very nice pay.

Here's a job title to strike fear into anyone who cares about... well... anything really: management consultant.

If my Mum used to be too ashamed to tell folk I worked in advertising and so claimed I worked as the piano player in a brothel, then these were the guys in the rooms upstairs. And billing it at £300+/hr, no result-all fee, for a further bunch of senior, experienced, 'can't do without the talent pool' numpties to pass on to the hapless bunch they claim to serve.

I was en route to a do just now and caught the Jeremy Vine show on BBC R2. Always good for a popped blood vessel or three.

The topic seems to have been inspired by the news that said hourly rate was going to a merry crew to advise the Royal Mail, and £65M had been set aside to cover per diems.

And in a classic twofer we had the lady boss of the Institute of bloodsucking makeweights and an ex-practioner. Both, amazingly, had written books, which by sheer coincidence were mentioned more than the story.

Now I can only presume the lady was a relative of Mr. Vine's, as he pretty much followed each one of her statements with 'well, that's nailed that one!'.

Her opponent was actually rather good on facts, but very poor on presentation. So you can see how this went down in one of our premier news debate shows.

I kind of gave up hoping for balance when this bloke quoted the lady from her own book as saying 'most management consultancy is a total waste'. And she was then allowed to adjust it to 'well, some might be less than...' and move on.

And then a series of utter disasters, mainly public service, costing us a fortune and doing diddly squat, was raised and then dismissed as exceptions. NHS, Tax Credit, Child Support... you name the triumph of sod all, management consultancy was at its core. And still got paid.

What amazed me was this cocky bird couldn't seem to quote a single case (I presume there must be many) where the consultants had actually made a positive difference. She even tried to claim they'd had the 'idea' of putting MOTs online or something... with the DVLA. That's it???? And as the bod pointed out, even that didn't quite work as well as claimed.

Next she'll be saying the got an award for the crinkly bits around Norway (you'll have to know your Hitch-hikers Guide)

And barely discussed was the role of the even more venal crew who hire these guys. If they can't manage, why are they hiring others in to mis-manage for them? I am being rhetorical. Layers confer prestige and/or offer protection come the 'review'.

Sickening. Enjoy the bubbly-bath, guys. There is a wall ready and wait when the revolution comes.

Indy - Are drug treatment programmes a waste of taxpayers' money? - Speaking of total wastes of money. I can't do the maths, but it seems that it's costing hundreds if not thousands per person, to reach fewer addicts.

IDEA - SpagScale

Having been prodded to do what I really should more (ie: what I'm good at, making stuff down me shed), I have at last added this to the site.

Yet another 'green' quango?

According to the Guardian, Hilary Benn, now of DEFRA, is looking at creating yet another government advisory service to inform citizens just how to 'green' their homes.

They are going "to create a one-stop "green homes service", making it easier for householders to change their lifestyles by offering advice, installation services and loans for equipment such as solar panels".

Now isn't that pretty much the identical remit that the Energy Savings Trust already has? On top of them we have Low Carbon Buildings, ActOnCo2, Blue Skies, the BRE, the Carbon Trust, Sustainable Development Gov. and Envirowise, as well as multiple regional and local council initiatives.

Sorry, but I can help feeling that this is just yet another example of something that our government can shout about - 'look what we've created to help out' - that is simply replicating exactly what's gone before, and achieving, well, probably, absolutely nothing! Not to mention creating another raft of civil servant, gilt-edged pensioned jobs-worth roles, controlled by a set of meaningless and ever changing targets, where promotion is earned and rewards are granted for doing sod all, and where 90% of the funding goes on staff, administration and internal projects!

Everything is talk, quangos, advisory services and waffle.
Where the hell is the DOING?

Addendum:
Even the civil servants themselves reckon the government is failing on climate change!

And, "half-hearted measures are as dangerous as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler".

Addendum (Junkk Male) - When in doubt (and having screwed up with what you have already), hire more: MPs in call for new climate body BBC

Leftover policies

It's one of those things where you can't help but agree, but equally have to wonder what the heck is going to happen if 'the Man' decides to get involved: Watching your waste

I just hope to heck we don't get subjected to some multi-million £ piece of pointless ad campaigning (shoot, I just read on. We are) where the money could be so easily, and effectively, be applied elsewhere.

I think we have to think laterally.

Speaking personally on a family issue, we are looking at reducing waste still further on a money and health basis. At the moment, we do still waste a portion, but it's mainly the kids, and that then gets consumed by yours truly either on the spot or the next day. I'm not getting any thinner.

One area we are looking at portions a lot more closely. The other month my godmother gave* me a piece of wood with four holes in it to measure 1-4 portions of spaghetti. Works a treat.

ADDENDUM - Just finished a lunch comprised mainly of what the boys didn't eat last night. I'm not sure a governminted campaign, a couple of slots on the BBC news and the nice lady from Good Housekeeping saying it's what Granny used to do is going to swing them much. But we can hope.

Meanwhile I have been asked for a piccy of Aunty's SpagScale. I reminded me that I spend too much time talking and not enough doing. So it's up on this blog now, with a link to the site with instructions (well, drill a hole in a plank... D'uh).

*I fibbed a bit. She gave me 'the plan', a utensil rubbing of her fancy effort. And it only had 3 holes. Sorry. If you can do the maths I'm sure you can do one for any number. I'm guessing 40mm for four, and there's bound to me some whizzo numb3rs way to plot it.

Criminal Waste

As we're on a roll today as regards public money being p*ssed away when it could help save the planet, here's what I wrote to Newsnight first thing this morning.

Clostridium difficile

The funding of and hence governing of any public service is fast acquiring the levels of farce.

As it stands I remain unclear whether this lady resigned or was dismissed, and hence in either case (though accepting there are differences under the current 'interesting' employment laws) why she would be getting any payment at all escapes me.

That only a case so grotesque as this highlights the protagonists, their actions and the sums from the public purse involved can only lead one to wonder just what else, if marginally less awful, results in any from the public sector - who range from the simply inefficient to the venal - getting swathes of cash for no good reason I can see. Well, other than allowing the clowns who oversee it all to dig their sorry careers out of another hole with other people’s money. Meanwhile a solider mutilated in battle gets grudgingly upgraded to a similar amount to live on for the rest of his life.

And now, today, I turn on the TV to find out that yet another highly trumpeted body (the Crim Combo Crowd) takes 3 times more money to administer than it doles out to those who need it, and not a civil servant's salary and gold-plated pension.

A classic, if sorry metaphor for Blair/Brown's Britain now, whilst the previous 'case' shows just what the effect of 10 years of pouring money without any concept of control can(not) achieve.

This is criminal!

The Assets Recovery Agency was set up in 2003 with a remit to seize the assets of convicted criminals. As reported by The Times today, it has not exactly produced particularly good results.

Having spent over £65 Million in four years, it had recovered, by December last year, some £23 Million in illegally obtained assets.

A return on investment of -£40 Million; now that sounds like it was really well thought out and considered!

Just think about this; at an average cost of £400 per household that's some 100,000 UK houses that could have been fully insulated; substantially saving both energy and CO2 emissions.

What's the betting that no heads will roll, no gold-plated pensions will be put at risk, and that all those in senior positions involved will end up in some alternative cushy number to continue practicing their incompetence? They ought to be put on trial themselves for misappropriation of taxpayers money!

Going to waste

Sorry, I meant going into waste: Defra to get £4 billion a year by 2010

Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.

Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.

My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!

Oh, you are cards

I hate to be ungrateful, but this was a bit too much not to comment upon. See that picture. It's 250 business cards.

I nice compnay had offered me free sample, and when the word gets free I'm you're man.

So when postie knocked on the door I wondered what the big box contained. I remained none the wiser as I encountered the gorgeous laminated box with a huge brochure inside listing printing prices.

And then I found it.

Guys, I love ya to death and AM impressed with the work. But if you are sending stuff out to a company that is trying to save the planet (or anyone else for that matter), I'm sure you can get you message across without quiet such a show of resource .

Energy Measures Report

The Dept. for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform yesterday published their Energy Measures Report.

This purports to set "out the steps that local authorities can take to:

• improve energy efficiency;
• increase the levels of microgeneration and low carbon technologies;
• reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
• reduce the number of households living in fuel poverty."

It advises that "Local authorities will have to ‘have regard’ to the report when exercising their functions." So its advisory only then.

Here's a chunk from the Planning Module:-

"Sustainability appraisal will be important in shaping appropriate spatial strategies. Sustainability appraisal is required in revising Regional Spatial Strategies and preparing new Local Development Documents (Development Plan Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents). This incorporates requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, and includes consideration of the effects of implementing such plans on certain issues such as air and climatic factors. Guidance has been produced to assist authorities with this".

Which means what, exactly? I really hope they have got guidance on this because its as clear as mud to me!

Having had a quick look it appears to me to be 165 pages of gobbledygook, waffle, hot air and wasted effort. Nothing new there then!

Stating the bleedin' obvious

Yet again, we have a study that has dug up an amazing fact - research, as reported by Reuters (amongst many others) has shown that rock stars have a tendency to die younger than most!

Well, slap my thighs, that's just an amazing discovery - I can hardly believe it!

This is yet another in the long line of pointless, stupid, wasted research projects that conclude with what everybody knows to be the case anyway. It's from the same mold as the study in the early 1980's which concluded that people who smoked cigarettes tended not to suffer from Alzheimer's - whilst totally ignoring the fact that people who smoked heavily actually died before they were old enough to develop Alzheimer's disease.

Why is so much money squandered on such bloody useless research?

No We Don't Need Nuclear Power!

Oh yes we do! Oh no we don't!

Remember our much discussed post on nuclear power generation development and the problems of disposing of nuclear waste?

Well, a response from emeritus professor Keith Barnham appears in today's Guardian. He argues that we just don't need nuclear power at all, and proposes that solar, especially, and wind technology, will rapidly make the suggested expansion of nuclear power generation facilities a non-starter.

The usual clutch of comment posters have already been busy, most falling in to diametrically opposing camps, as usual, but there are some very interesting comments, facts (well, some, maybe, and some a bit questionable....ish) and figures quoted.

Interestingly, there are a few posters who, (maybe with some justification?), question the veracity of an author who is a founder of a solar panel development business.

Me? Well, I'm still confused. I still harbor doubts that 'renewables' technology can develop fast enough to fill the gap that carbon based power generation will surely hit in the future. And I still believe that storing nasty nuclear waste for when future generations can dispose of it safely and securely with a workable industrial scale transmutation technology is not really the correct thing to do.

As ever, there seem to be more questions than answers; and more 'facts'(?) flying about than you can shake a stick at. I'm open to persuasion either for or against nuclear, especially as it does seem to offer the most obvious stop-gap solution. But I think I'll stay sitting on the fence for now.

Anybody want to persuade me to drop down one side or the other?

Addendum:
Well, interestingly, despite Italy banning nuclear power station construction years ago, some at The Vatican do seem to be in favour of nuclear power! Plus they intend to become the planet's first carbon neutral sovereign state! See article from USA Today. Pity that it appears that most of this is to be achieved via offsetting.
____________________

Nuclear waste not a problem?

I always find this sort of article fascinating. From The Guardian Comment, the writer suggests that the development of additional nuclear power capability is crucial in the fight against global warming. OK ........ I think I can follow the basic logic of that argument.

But, and its a BIG but, we get the same old argument about how to dispose of, store, throw away the inevitable nasty stuff that's left over.

"When we need to deal with the leftovers, we'll have the technology."

Errrrm, go on, prove it to me then. And while you're at it, just what is the EnviROI of storing stuff for decades while scientists play around with ideas on how to dispose of it properly, pray?

Although I still believe that nuclear will inevitably have to be part of the mix in terms of future power generation, I'm sorry, but that sort of argument about disposal of the horrendous waste that spent nuclear fuel represents is just not acceptable.

The article suggests several disposal methods that are in the research stage including some that actually make the waste safe (or, at least, a lot safer), but most of these ideas have been around for some 40+ years now, and yet there is still no safe way of dealing with the spent fuel.

The article is entitled: -

"Nuclear waste is hardly a worry when the climate change threat is so urgent"

Sorry, but even measured against the worry that climate change induces in many of us, it IS a major worry to anyone concerned about the environment of this little lump of planetary rock.

ADDENDUM - Junkk Male to CiF site

I must share the compliment offered to what has mostly been a civilised and highly informative series of exchanges.

Just one thing.

If we are to squirt the stuff elsewhere rather than doing without or dealing with it (a human trait), can we wait until the tehcnological solutions that have so far resulted in our current extra-orbital attempts scrape to a slighly more reassuring succcess rate.

Oh, and please make it over someone else's head, not in a jet-stream, etc.

Ta very much.

London to get huge desalination plant

Its obviously a day for water stories......

I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.

London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.

In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)

On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.

Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)

(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])

That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)

Addendum:

Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."

Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"