Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So, sorry I have been away from the Skeptoid forums for a while, and as this wouldn't there, I thought I would put it here, as it seems to be a political debate more than an issue of environmental science.
More accurately it is a question of when environmental science is the basis for policy.
For those who aren't aware HS2 is the second high speed railroute being built, (HS1 being the CTRL, or Chanel Tunnel Rail Link, and the related London Route Redevelopments- erm, lots of lovelly new high speed lines that link London to the coast), to basically connect the bigger cities of the UK. It will be a big new link that crosses the country.
The thing is both those who are for AND against the project claim to be fighting it on environmental issues. The opposing stances both claim to be green. Can they both be right?
As far as I can tell the question of it is green or not depends on what you compare it to. For example one of the major NO campaigns make a number of statements:
http://stophs2.org/facts
Sofor example: "400kph trains use 3 times the power that 200kph trains do." Yes but how does it compare to the passengers on those trains driving cars or riding busses? The trains will be electric, so presumably it will be greener for me to ride a train powered by carbon neutral nuclear energy, or energy offset by windfarms and tidal energy? How much of that energy is returned to the grid by regenerative braking? Remember a train can carry hundreds of passengers, a car only carries 4 or 5, and few cars travel at capacity. If you look at the carbon footprint at a passenger level the carbon per person on a train tends (a lot of trains around with a lot of variables of course) to look a lot more favourable than the carbon per person travelling by road. Of course, for high speed commuting we have to remember internal flight as another alternative that is getting popular, with a massive carbon footprint.
More worrying is: "HS2 will increase carbon emissions, but the Government say the project is carbon neutral. We are committed to 80% reduction in emissions by 2050." Why is a group entirely based around campaigning against a project concerned with a reduction in carbon emissions beyond the project? And if they are, why are they not supporting a project to make carbon-light train travel a more viable alternative to driving?
Those oppose to the project also ask why the government can't just add more trains to the current rail network, as though that would simply require adding a few extra carriages here and there. But this in turn opens a whole can of worms. The more carriages (load) you put on a systemt, the more other things you have to build or replace: Those substations that were built in the 1950s? The ones with oil filled equipment? Yeah, they wont be able to cope with the extened capacity. Those rails? They need to be checked more often. Cables burn out faster. Ballast issues become serious more quickly. Platforms need extending. Signals need restructuring. And so on and so on.
By the time you have poured all that concrete, lain those cables, renewed all those points and crossings to suit the longer trains, and exteneded the passenger terminals, would have been significantly less than just building the new line? How far can current capacity be stretched? If you don't invest in diverting commuters onto the railway would that not just require more projects, equally hazardous to the environment in other ways, to extend the road network and ease congestion?
Hmm. What are your thoughts folks?
More accurately it is a question of when environmental science is the basis for policy.
For those who aren't aware HS2 is the second high speed railroute being built, (HS1 being the CTRL, or Chanel Tunnel Rail Link, and the related London Route Redevelopments- erm, lots of lovelly new high speed lines that link London to the coast), to basically connect the bigger cities of the UK. It will be a big new link that crosses the country.
The thing is both those who are for AND against the project claim to be fighting it on environmental issues. The opposing stances both claim to be green. Can they both be right?
As far as I can tell the question of it is green or not depends on what you compare it to. For example one of the major NO campaigns make a number of statements:
http://stophs2.org/facts
Sofor example: "400kph trains use 3 times the power that 200kph trains do." Yes but how does it compare to the passengers on those trains driving cars or riding busses? The trains will be electric, so presumably it will be greener for me to ride a train powered by carbon neutral nuclear energy, or energy offset by windfarms and tidal energy? How much of that energy is returned to the grid by regenerative braking? Remember a train can carry hundreds of passengers, a car only carries 4 or 5, and few cars travel at capacity. If you look at the carbon footprint at a passenger level the carbon per person on a train tends (a lot of trains around with a lot of variables of course) to look a lot more favourable than the carbon per person travelling by road. Of course, for high speed commuting we have to remember internal flight as another alternative that is getting popular, with a massive carbon footprint.
More worrying is: "HS2 will increase carbon emissions, but the Government say the project is carbon neutral. We are committed to 80% reduction in emissions by 2050." Why is a group entirely based around campaigning against a project concerned with a reduction in carbon emissions beyond the project? And if they are, why are they not supporting a project to make carbon-light train travel a more viable alternative to driving?
Those oppose to the project also ask why the government can't just add more trains to the current rail network, as though that would simply require adding a few extra carriages here and there. But this in turn opens a whole can of worms. The more carriages (load) you put on a systemt, the more other things you have to build or replace: Those substations that were built in the 1950s? The ones with oil filled equipment? Yeah, they wont be able to cope with the extened capacity. Those rails? They need to be checked more often. Cables burn out faster. Ballast issues become serious more quickly. Platforms need extending. Signals need restructuring. And so on and so on.
By the time you have poured all that concrete, lain those cables, renewed all those points and crossings to suit the longer trains, and exteneded the passenger terminals, would have been significantly less than just building the new line? How far can current capacity be stretched? If you don't invest in diverting commuters onto the railway would that not just require more projects, equally hazardous to the environment in other ways, to extend the road network and ease congestion?
Hmm. What are your thoughts folks?
