PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

"Blue Sky Thinking" about Heathrow
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1109
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
PS_RalphW wrote:
The seat used to be Liberal. By standing as an Independent Zac would force the Tories to put up their own candidate, splitting the Tory vote. Combined with Brexit and the usual by-election swing, it becomes a shoe-in for the Liberals.

Only if the Tories don't stand will Zac be elected.


Right, thanks.


The Tories didn't stand....., but Zac didn't get elected.....
Typical Lib Dem By election victory...., although they might perk up more generally, as they're the only clearly Pro EU Party.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11269
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He was on a hiding to nothing once the LibDems got the discussion onto his pro Brexit stance. In a constituency which voted to Remain, in London which voted to Remain, he didn't stand a chance. Zak was more than a bit politically naive in resigning. I doubt that he will make that mistake again.

I am expecting Militant Remainers to start saying that we should have a general election because the people have spoken against Brexit. Oh no they haven't! A few Remainers have voted the same way again.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8082

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Zak was more than a bit politically naive in resigning.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's actually glad to be out of it, politics that is. Losing the Mayoral election must have been a massive blow, dispite being pro-Brexit he's not well aligned with the current government.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14528
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since Flying is Responsible for Only 5 Percent of Carbon Emissions, I Have the Right to Fly Abroad on Holiday, Right? Wrong.

Quote:
Lets get this straight. Since the typical American emits around 20-25 tonnes per year, this means that every four to five years, he or she will have caused, through profligate carbon spending, the homelessness, serious illness, starvation or death of some fellow human being, living in a vulnerable community: someone they have never met, who has never done them any harm.

_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9869
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-shelves-another-key-clash-10792131

Quote:

expanding Heathrow Airport postponed until next year

MPs expected a parliamentary vote this autumn on expanding Heathrow - but Transport Secretary Chris Grayling confirmed it was being put off until next year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1109
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe linked to this....?

Heathrow hotel operator drafts £6.7bn cheaper third runway plan:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/09/heathrow-third-runway-hotel-operator-arora-drafts-cheaper-expansion-plan

Surinder Arora publishes ‘cheaper and less disruptive’ plan to expand airport including shifting new runway away from M25 and reducing site area by 25%
A wealthy hotel operator has submitted plans for a third runway at Heathrow which he claims would be £6.7bn cheaper than the airport’s current scheme. Surinder Arora, founder and chairman of the Arora Group, said there were “cheaper and better ways” to expand Britain’s biggest airport in proposals sent to the government as part of a public consultation. In a long-awaited and controversial decision announced in October, ministers chose to back expansion at Heathrow rather than at Gatwick airport. It paves the way for hundreds of thousands more flights a year at the west London airport and would bring new neighbourhoods under the flightpath. Arora said his alternative plans for a third runway and new terminal would involve less disruption to local communities, partly because a smaller amount of land would be required.

“We want passengers to be at the heart of our plans and the current monopoly at Heathrow, which over-charges airlines and in turn raises fares for passengers, is not the right model for the future,” Arora said. “Heathrow needs competition and innovation which puts passengers and airlines at the heart of the expansion project. “We are now calling on the government to consider more carefully how competition can improve Heathrow’s offer to passengers, and how airlines at the heart of these plans will benefit passengers. We look forward to working with the new government to discuss these issues and how our proposals can help improve the airport’s expansion.” Arora, who has a portfolio of hotels at Heathrow and other locations, suggested the £17.6bn current plan estimate could be cut by moving the planned new runway, which he said would save motorists using the M25 almost a decade of inconvenience.

“One of the options we have proposed to government includes a possible shift of the runway so that it does not impact on the M25 and M4; as we know the M25 junction being affected threatens the deliverability of the whole project. We appreciate this is a politically sensitive issue but it is merely an option with additional savings of £1.5bn, whereas the rest of our proposals save up to £5.2bn without the need to amend the runway location.” Other savings would come from changes to the terminal design and taxi way system, which it claimed would allow the same rise in capacity as the current scheme, and scrapping some plans such as expansion of Terminal 2.

Continues....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4025

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Or stop f*****g flying, that would save lots of £bn. And would mean no need for another land hungry runway.
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 7225
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
Or stop f*****g flying, that would save lots of £bn. And would mean no need for another land hungry runway.


Yes, or even fly a bit less such that the existing facilities will suffice without building more.
Or make more use of rail instead of shorter flights.

Oil prices are relatively low at present, but the long term trend will assuredly be upwards as supplies deplete, more expensive oil will mean less flying.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 2159

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a simple view which is that if we build more runways beyond what we already have then we are not serious about trying to either stabilise or reduce usage of fossil fuels. I cannot see the mathematical justification for more runways if we are trying to do something about fossil fuel usage.

To me there are two big political issues.

a) Dealing with technological change
b) actually getting a sustainable energy policy.

a) doesn't really feature in proper debate.

b) is one were some progress is being made, but not that much given the desire for more and more airflight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 7225
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Air travel is virtually 100% dependant on jet fuel produced from crude oil.
Technological changes are unlikely to much alter this.
Jet engines are a mature technology and unlikely to improve significantly in efficiency.
Biofuels are a theoretical possibility but seem most unlikely to be available in the volumes required.
Electric aeroplanes are a possibility, several small and short range ones have already flown, but the energy density of any foreseeable battery is far inferior to jet fuel.

So more runways mean more flights and more flights mean more oil burnt and more carbon emitted.

Aviation is unlikely to suddenly vanish, it is an important part of the modern economy, but if as a nation we are serious about reducing carbon emissions, then we need to plan for a steady reduction in air travel, not for an increase.

Heathrow should be sufficient for present needs if just 10% of passengers stayed at home, AND if another 10% of short haul passengers went by train instead.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8082

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A new runway at Heathrow won't happen.

A more productive discussion would be around the order and timing of the scaling back of aviation infrastructure. Which runways to close, which airports to close first etc.

We will be flying significantly less in a few decades time, either due to being poor, or fossil fuel shortages or waking up to the seriousness of climate change - pick your reason.

Spending billions on new aviation capacity would be a pretty stupid decision.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12654
Location: York

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They might just go ahead and build one as a "growth"/"job creation" exercise, though, even though it isn't really going to get needed.

A bit like that billion quid's worth of bypasses they've just announced. Which is as pointless now as was that roadbuilding programme they started during the Irish famine, and for much the same reasons.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cubes



Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it possible that the reason the decision keeps getting put back due to the reasons outlined above?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 7225
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1109
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cubes wrote:
Is it possible that the reason the decision keeps getting put back due to the reasons outlined above?

adam2 wrote:
Yes.


I'm fairly sure the message hasn't got through and they still want to proceed....., I think it's more to do with a cheaper option being dangled in front of them and that there are a number of Tory seats round there - less disruption = fewer lost votes...

They've just given the go ahead for the HS2 Contracts - the arguments with that that are similar, but they're ploughing on regardless....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group