by Michael Smith
Lessons from the past are needed for a sustainable future
In order to arrive at a green and sustainable society we must go back to the future or advance towards the past.
While I know that there would be some people that might call me, and others like me, Luddites for suggesting this I am not, however, in any way against technology and such. Far from it and the opposite it true, as I believe that it is the old technology combined with our modern one and the knowledge that we have now that really can and will and could and would be a solution. Many of the old technologies could, combined with today's knowledge and technology, be improved for the use of today in a sustainable society.
Examples here could be, for instance:
- Satellite navigation devices for sailing ships, as well as modern communications combined with other aids such as devices to trim sails efficiently that could make such carbon neutral vessels the maritime transport of the future.
- Trains could, once again be steam trains burning waste wood in their furnaces to heat the boilers instead of coal and they could even use methane gas with which to power steam turbines. Wood burning alone would make those trains basically carbon neutral; using methane gas would make them better, probably, still.
- CHP using wood such as waste wood, forest industry waste, and other such “solid” timber – not chips or pellet.
- Houses once again should be built with smaller windows, including office building, as that, as it has shown from studies of the old building from the late 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, is much more energy efficient than the huge glass frontages that we have created ever since the 1960s and 1970s. Those building with all the huge glass fronts waste heat in the cold periods and require cooling in the hot times. For the additional lights solar tubes should be employed to bring daylight into houses and offices.
- Windows also should have, like the used to, shutters that can be closed – during cold to retain heat and during heat to keep it out.
- Blinds should be used on windows, whether inside or the awning kind outside, in order to keep out the over amount of sunlight and making it hence cheaper to keep a building cool in hot periods.
Let's face it, none of this is rocket science and it has been about for years, decades and even centuries. We just thought, so it would appear, that the old folks simply were wrong in the way they did things. They were not. Maybe that is the reason why the change in climate has only occurred when we started to use the huge windows and all those things. Think about it!
Even the simple Amish style horse and buggy and the bicycle should be definitely making a comeback if we want to have a really sustainable society and future.
The problem with the way the governments act, including and especially the British government, is as if all this is rocket science. They need to have this study and that study in order discover the things that have been discovered centuries ago.
In summer 2008 it took the British government a study to discover that waste wood can be burned. I mean, real rocket science, is it not. The Neanderthals could have told them that for less than the millions of Sterling spent on the study.
About the same time, through yet another multi-million Pound Sterling study they discovered that inland waterways and canals can be used for the transportation of freight. One can but wonder what those people think the canals and navigations were “invented” for in the 19th Century? Pleasure boating? Certainly not. The canals and the so-called “navigations” were created for the transportation of freight, of coal, bricks and other pottery goods, iron ore, etc. It certainly was not for any kind of pleasure boating.
Many of the old technologies will serve us better through the crises and in reducing our impact on the environment than many of the new ideas.
Biofuels, as one example, are not the saviour that they are made out to be. First of we will still be using the infernal combustion engine, putting out exhaust fumes into the atmosphere, and secondly, the production of those, unless we can use pond algae, puts an even greater strain on the environment than does the extraction of oil, including, I should assume, the use of tar sands.
As far as biofuels are concerned it would appear that we are, yet again, dealing with another new vested interest groups where money is involved. A different kind of oil boom, but one that will be as dangerous to the environment, if not more so even, than our current usage of oil.
In a small way biofules can be used, such as for lamp oil, as they always used to, but for the use in motorcars they should not be employed as, as it would appear, they might even release more harmful emissions than does standard oil based gasoline diesel.
In many way, as said, we would be much better off if we looked at the old ways and also on what, for instance, the original Ford cars were meant to run, namely methane. And the same was the case for the original electricity generating power stations. Methane gas is there in abundance and is produced by decomposition, including in the effluent that we sent into the sewerage works or into the septic tanks.
If we would combine old technologies with the modern ones of today I am convinced that we really could make a positive impact on the environment and on the lives of all of us.
Why do we have to get from, say, London to Birmingham, in half and hour or thereabouts by train, for instance, at a high cost though (flying is cheaper and that does not make sense), rather than having a reliable and cheap railroad service that might take an hour or even an hour and a half between those two places, but which run even half hour? We are obsessed with speed.
The same is true as to the Internet. We want and demand faster and faster computers and faster and faster Internet connections. Precisely what for? In my view 2 MB speed should suffice. Rather than faster and faster reliability should be made the burning issue and safety. But I digressed.
The same is for the transportation of freight. We want it there yesterday, near enough at least, and this is all due to the fact that we do not have proper logistics control in companies and factories, and that stores do not have any warehousing facilities proper. Hence we have everything trucked around the countryside at speed. Overnight deliveries, next day deliveries, etc., etc.
London, for example, has a big river going through it, namely the Thames, but the only freight traffic on that river, a navigable river, are garbage barges towed by tugs and the occasional dredger. Only with the beginning of the building of the 2012 Olympic areas is some freight being carried again via some parts of the river.
When we look, however, at other countries, whether this be Germany or elsewhere, the waterways are still being used for freight and all freight that is not in a rush to getting somewhere, such as fuels, building materials, etc., are carried by river and canals.
In renewable energy, including the burning of wood for combined heat and power, many if not indeed all of our European neighbors are leading the way and Britain is somewhere far behind trying to, maybe finally, playing “catch up”.
Forest wast and waste lumber can provide a great deal of the wood that is going into such CHP plants and if those are local rather than trying to supply an entire country the footprint would a much smaller one too.
Earlier on I mentioned sailing ships, like the three-masters and four-masters of old that were ocean going, but also the two-mast and even the single-mast Thames barge kind of vessels I mean to include in in that, could once again ply the waters to carry cargo.
Already wine is being transported from France to Ireland using such ships and, while it takes a little longer (anyone needing the wind next day delivery?) the slower journey and especially the kind of journey with the rolling of a sailing vessel in and with the sea compared to a steamer or such is apparently better for the wine and its quality.
Carrying cargo in such a way is low carbon to basically nigh on carbon neutral. The only environmental footprint problem being from the use of the generator on board to power the navigation systems, communications, radar transponder and such like.
With modern technologies, I am sure, sailing ships could, once again, come into their own, especially for traditional kind of cargo without the use of huge metal boxes. I somewhat doubt that the more or less traditional sailing ships will be capable of having those boxes standing around on deck.
That said, however, the question is as to whether containers are, in fact, a requirement for fright shipping.
So much for some food for thought here. A larger essay on this subject shall be forthcoming soon and more than likely be incorporated in the first volume of the e-book “The Best of Green (Living) Review – Vol.1”.
© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>
