Posts Tagged ‘environment’

BIOMASS: THE NEW GREEN COAL?

April 1, 2017

Biomass energy, as a “greener” alternative to fossil fuels is contested.

http://www.pfpi.net/trees-trash-and-toxics-how-biomass-energy-has-become-the-new-coal

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/789018/heat-network-funding-scheme-council-government-funding

Advertisements

LAKE DISTRICT SPARED PYLONS:

November 2, 2016

National Grid to lay cables underground.
http://www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/Pages/News/Site/say-no-to-pylons-in-the-lake-district-setting/Category/campaign-overview-nwcc

PYLON THREAT

May 1, 2016

New cables are needed to connect a new power station at Sellafield to the grid. These would usually be supported on pylons erected across the countryside. However, this project would mean they would have to traverse the Lake District National Park along its south-west coast. The alternative, more expensive way of achieving this would be to bury the cables in the ground at an increased cost of around 450 million pounds. National grid, the company responsible for the project naturally prefers the cheaper solution but no decision has yet been taken and a consultation will be held prior to this. A commercial company cannot be expected to wait an inordinate amount of time for a return on its investment and would push for the cheaper solution. However, if a short-term levy were imposed on electricity bills to cover the extra cost we could have our cake and eat it too. A seventeen-pound hike spread over a few years would pay for it and wouldn’t jeopardise other projects. The proviso of course is that bills would return to normal when the work is completed.

ANTENNA REMOVED

April 27, 2016

The A.T.V. transmitting antenna has been taken down on instruction from South Lakes Housing:
The video monitoring continues.

POLLUTED AGENCY?

March 22, 2016

There’s an article in the 17th March 2016 edition of The Craven Herald and Pioneer regarding a pollution incident of a local river. Discharge from a quarry has been blamed for the pollution at Ingleton in Yorkshire. The Environment Agency responded to nine complaints of discolouration of the river Greta and Doe from members of the public. The agency states that there were approximately six kilometres of watercourse visibly affected by the pollution and “There are no known fish or long-term disruption to aquatic life.” They also state, “As the material didn’t appear to settle quickly, impacts of pollution are believed to be short term, with little to no long term deposition of material. Heavy rain overnight on February 29, and the morning of March 1, would have likely removed any remaining deposits.” They are also working with the quarry to determine the exact cause for the discharge and ways to prevent a recurrence.”

This is not good enough: There’s no mention as to what substance was causing the pollution or whether samples had been taken for analysis.

“There are no known fish or long term disruption to aquatic life.” Were tests or monitoring carried out?

“As the material didn’t appear to settle quickly, impacts of pollution are believed to be short term, with little or no long term deposition of material. Did any material settle? Has there been any impact?

Heavy rain overnight on February 29, and the morning of March 1, would have likely removed any remaining deposits.”

This blasé attitude is inappropriate.

It is the duty of the Environment Agency to take these incidents seriously and to report to the public their findings after scientifically determining the nature of the pollutant – not to fob us off with guesswork or wishful thinking.

ANOTHER CASE:

https://www.rt.com/viral/358561-red-river-siberia-norilsk/

SAFETY ENQUIRY:

December 12, 2014

Reply from South Lakes Housing relating to term 1 of the injunction.

fire-roe-common-room-enquiry-reply-rot

WILDLIFE DEATHS:

September 23, 2014

NEW CASE

This creature was found in the Market square in Kirkby Lonsdale on September 23rd 2014. It appears to be a small crow nestling which died weeks ago. This creature was not observed on the previous Friday (19th September).

pyethon-photo0691-klsq

pyethon-photo0694-klsq-ring

WILDLIFE PROTECTION:

June 2, 2014

FELLED TREE

FELLED TREE

FOURTH TREE FELLED

A tree which had been preserved during the excavations has been felled.

SOUND BYTE:

April 7, 2013

TURBINE TURNAROUND

 

 

There’s an article in the March 8th edition of THE CUMBERLAND NEWS 2013 regarding an application to build a wind turbine at Oughterby in Cumbria England. The 114 foot (34 metre) turbine had initially been refused by Allerdale Council but the decision was revoked on appeal. An appeal decision document states that “environmental, economic and energy benefits should be given considerable weight.” Also, “The turbine will not harm the character or the appearance of the landscape or living conditions of residence.”

 

CHECK POINTS:

 

a) The energy benefit:

The energy benefit of the turbine will be  nil. There will be no less coal used by coal fired power stations, Or less gallons of oil consumed by oil fired power stations. Nor will the control rods of nuclear power stations be lowered a fraction to slow them down. Also the microvolt increase in supply voltage will hardly be noticed.

 

b) The economic benefit:

There may be some short term economic benefit to the area if local labour is used plus a small increase in trade. Once the turbine is built this benefit will cease and may go negative. The wider impact on tourism of the structure could soon outweigh the initial benefits.

 

c) “The turbine will not harm the character or the appearance of the landscape or living conditions of residence.”

How was this conclusion arrived at? Had the panel canvassed every resident? If this wasn’t the case there may be grounds for legal redress.

 

d) The environmental benefit:

It takes hundreds of wind turbines to replace a single conventional power station. The reduction in carbon emissions resulting from a single turbine is negligible if not zero. When the construction and erection is taken into consideration the equation may be negative.

 

To gain a significant environmental benefit an absurd number of turbines must be built: But where should they be placed? Offshore – PERHAPS. In idyllic countryside – NO. Its time for a re-think.