Transporting water by sea

Sep 26, 2024 Last reply: 1 year ago 8 Replies

QUOTE Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, Doug Parr, said: “Decades of neglecting its own infrastructure have left Southern Water having to choose between unappealing options as the climate crisis threatens supplies. Causing permanent damage to local ecosystems by taking more water would be a further foolish concession to the short-termism that got us into this mess.



“Tankering in huge quantities of water from Norway will inevitably be a costly and carbon-intensive alternative to that of doing a better job with the water resources that are available in a rainy country like the UK … Despite the obvious failings of planning, water companies need to start thinking of potable fresh water as a precious and finite resource, and plan to start treating it as such.” UNQUOTE
formatting link

Does anyone know the view of Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, Doug Parr, on the subject of shipping huge quantities of specially-manufactured wood chippings to power Drax, a costly and carbon-intensive alternative to that of doing a better job?



No, but I suspect (with HS2 in mind) that the cost of a big bore pipe from Windermere to Surrey would be ginormous and unlikely ever to happen.

Surely they could tow a f****ng iceberg ?

Disproven in the 1960s, impossible to tow as totally irregular underwater shape gives ever changing incomputible sidethrusts wrt to wind and currents. I'm involved with a proposal for SW to transport "solids" from local sewage works to the regional further processing site, by water. Always used to use a s*it barge towed by tug but sea level rise means they can no longer shoot the bridges. Proposal is to use long Dracon barge "bladders" with sponsons, towed by tug. I doubt it will come to pass though. Each old style s*it barge load is currently replaced by 80 large lorry loads of stench.

Why on earth are you listening to anything Greenpeace's tame shill says?

>

I’m not! I stumbled across an article with the above in it, and wondered if it might be a case of double standards by Greenpeace. Someone might know their thoughts on the topic, but ICBA to spend time on it.

Drax fully complied with the edicts of MilliBrains Climate Change Act and converted all their coal to wood.

MilliBrains advisors were FOE, GreenPeace and Renewable UK

Greenpeace is just another Oil and gas shill probably fully financed by Russia to ensure that energy prices and demand for balancing gas remain high.

None of it is real. It's all virtue signalling and profiteering

Agreed. I live on Tyneside and see bulkers having taken up to 14 days to come from the US, then lying offshore, sometimes a similar period, before coming into South Shields to unload on to trains which, of course, use fuel. They then take the sawdust pellets to Drax or Lynemouth, where I am informed the load of pellets are burned before the train has left the power station. As a physicist, the energy used vs energy generated doesn't seem to compute IMO and I haven't included the energy used to cut down, 'pelletise' the wood and transport it to the ships in the first place.

While I might initially agree with you. You can desalinate sea-water when it is either windy or full sunshine. There are reservoirs where you can store the pure water for when the wind doesn't blow, or when the sun doesn't shine.

It's not rocket science.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required