Disqus - Latest Comments for chris_hutt

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:37:34 -0000

Welcome back to the blogosphere James. Good to see you haven't lost your touch.

Re: Tesco Express car park, Sketty

chris_hutt — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:12:02 -0000

If you write the registration number as S866NLT it can be Google searched. That way we gradually build up a database.

Re: Top Tips

chris_hutt — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:40:57 -0000

Aaagh, you've resurrected my garbled spelling of Nietzsche! I was hoping that it would quietly sink into the depths of decaying tweetdom, but now it's up there again for all to see. I copied 'Neitzche' from a reference I found on the net. I should have known straight away it was wrong - 'ei' or 'ie' in German are pronounced in each case as the English name for the second letter and ch is often preceded by s, as in 'deutsche' or 'schnell', otherwise it wouldn't produce the 'sh' sound.

Re: A complaint to the BBC

chris_hutt — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:43:10 -0000

I thought it quite pertinent to include 'random' views (although I suspect they were less random than they appear) from different road users, including 'that woman' since she illustrated the kind of attitude we're up against.

Within the programme there were a lot of positive things about cycling, not least the fact that so many articulate people were expressing views and concerns! Getting cycling discussed in an informed way on the mainstream media should not be taken for granted.

Re: A complaint to the BBC

chris_hutt — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:16:44 -0000

Miles Warde lives and works in Bristol and has been a regular cyclist and non-car owner for many years. I was interviewed by him at length, although only a short clip was used, and found his line of questionning informed and incisive.

The programme reflected a wide range of views as it should do. It wasn't intended to be a puff piece for cycling. It was also intended to engage with a wide range of listeners, not just those who are already keen cyclists. I thought it was well done overall.

Re: The Bristol Beast

chris_hutt — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:35:45 -0000

In those days I just called it the Seven Hills Ride (in English) and we didn't make a big deal of it, just another Sunday ride with a different twist. I can't remember much about it or who else was on it, maybe 10 of us, and I doubt whether any photos survive.

Re: The Bristol Beast

chris_hutt — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:33:08 -0000

The original Tour des Sept Collines de Bristol was done about 25 years ago when we cycled up each of the seven steepest hills including St Michael's Hill, Constitution Hill, Clifton Vale, Marlborough Hill, Nine Tree Hill and Vale Street (Totterdown). My knees simply coundn't take it now, not to mention other parts of my anatomy. But I wonder if a younger generation would be up for it, perhaps the fixies?

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:50:06 -0000

Scary stuff, driving without seat belts, and eating while driving too. I don't suppose they gave a hoot about their emissions either.

Talking of which the whole World Cup thing must be an enormous CO2 generator when you take account of all the international travel provoked by it. If Bristol 'wins' we will be hosting an environmental disaster that will negate everything that we are likely to do to reduce CO2 emissions in all the years leading up to it, which just goes to show how superficial the Council's 'green capital' ambitions are.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:09:20 -0000

Interesting clip. It seems the workers got roped in to do all the work for nothing so the four loud mouths could go off on a cheap holiday. It couldn't happen today of course.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:55:46 -0000

Surely the Council themselves should be doing a little carbon footprint calculation for such trips. The calculations generally used are based on standardised values so it's pretty simple maths.

The least environmentally damaging way for them to travel might well be by road, providing they don't go mad speed wise on the autobahnen. The important thing is to achieve maximum occupancy so 4 or 5 per Prius might be the answer.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:30:49 -0000

There must be zillions of web sites that have no worthwhile user function and exist merely for show (I can think of a few local 'green' ones), something to point to when the funding bodies ask what you've got to show for the money. Just a newer variation on he who pays the piper....

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:56:34 -0000

I wonder what the environmental impact of that lot is.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 06:58:53 -0000

It would be good to try this out on our politicians. Gordon we already know but Tony B?

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:51:58 -0000

Another way of making intermittent (e.g wind powered) generation more useful would be to encourage energy storage in homes and businesses. For example if the price of electricity varies according to supply and demand throughout the day it could be economic to store the energy when it's cheap and then use it when the grid supply is expensive.

Storage technology and investment could then be focussed more on the micro scale, allowing people to make their own decisions according to their own circumstances. Those with the space and capital to invest in energy storage could get on with it instead of waiting for the government to come up with some one-size-fits-all "solution".

One practical method of doing this already exists in the form of hot water storage tanks and storage heaters heated by off-peak electricity. If these devices could switch on and off according to unpredictable price changes rather than just a regular night time off-peak then that would go some way to make demand more responsive to supply.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:15:16 -0000

Presumably a cost effective means of storing the surplus energy generated by wind turbines would enable that stored energy to be released to meet demand when wind energy was inadequate.

That energy storage could involve,for example, pumping water uphill to a reservoir to be available to power water turbines. Is it not likely that we will develop a cost effective way of doing this for use in combination with wind turbines?

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:00:37 -0000

Investment in energy generation should be made by the private sector on the basis that they must pay for the adequate mitigation of whatever environmental harm they do. There is no need for further government involvement since the private sector will invest where it judges the returns to be greatest, which will be with the cheapest means of generating energy taking account of environmnetal costs.

With this approach we all benefit. We get the cheapest energy without any net environmental harm, energy generators can invest on the basis of real costs and not have to second guess political interference (which appears to be where Vesta fell down) and we don't need armies of bureaucrats meddling in the market.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:09:15 -0000

Wrong Trinity Street on map. Trinity Street is at east end of cathedral.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:41:03 -0000

On GWR electrification the point about the astronomical cost of savign a few minutes is well made but not technically correct. The £1.1 billion (and counting?) is for Swansea to Paddington including spurs to Oxford and Newbury and presumably the Bath loop from Swindon to Bristol as well as the Bristol Parkway route. The time saving for Swansea to London (normally 3+ hrs) is 19 mins. So the cost of just Bristol to London is perhaps nearer £500 million for a 12 minute saving, so £40ish million per minute.

I blogged about this too and drew attention to doubts about investing £1+ billion on something that gives such a poor return (40 year pay back!) when (a) we can't afford such expenditure and (b) there are other ways of investing the money in transport which would give a much better return.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:13:56 -0000

The old addage 'keep it simple' springs to mind. Would it not have been better to farm out the whole redevelopment to the private sector, selling the land and just exercising some controls through the planning control system?

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:22:57 -0000

"The fans of big business tend to be socialists/corporatists (like you) as big players are easier to regulate, and willing to negotiate for political power. Small business on the other hand tends to get on with the boring matter of
providing goods and services people wish to purchase."

Brilliant James. I think one could add that big business likes politically inspired regulation because they have the resources to negotiate to ensure that it suits big business and undermines competing small businesses (excessive red tape, etc.).

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:33:25 -0000

I like the idea of far fewer but much larger wards, say equivalent to 3 or 4 existing ones, each having say 5 or 6 councillors who would be elected on some sort of PR basis so the preferences of the ward's electorate were better reflected. Almost everyone who bothered to vote would then feel that they had a more or less local representative of more or less their political persuasion.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:51:54 -0000

Hard to see any convincing argument for changing the system.

At present we each have an opportuntiy to vote for a councillor every other year (or 2 years out of 4) instead of just once every four years (for two councillors at once) under the proposed all-up system. Isn't having more frequent opportunities to vote more democratic?

There is the argument that councillors can forget about the next round of elections for maybe 3 years (if we assume that the year running up to an election is beset by political manoeuvring), whereas at present they only have one year in four free of such concerns. But is it not a good thing to keep them on their toes and mindful of the next election? If it's a bad thing then why not elect them for life?

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:04:01 -0000

I'll settle for least worse.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:35:43 -0000

As you may know James I've argued for the cost of carbon and other malign emissions to be built into the cost of goods and services so that we have just the one monetary price to consider. The effect of such an approach would be to make carbon intensive products much more expensive but also to create strong incentives for the economy to minimise carbon emissions. It could be a simple market mechanism requiring little bureaucratic interference and sparing us the burden of supporting thousands of so-called 'green' jobs.

The clever bit about such a strategy is that it then doesn't matter how much carbon any individual chooses to emit because he will pay for the necessary mitigation through the price mechanism. No need to feel guilty, just pay the price.

Re: Bio

chris_hutt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:35:54 -0000

A few problems with this, unless I'm mistaken.

"... a two degree rise will occur without reductions in carbon emissions". I think the two degree rise is what we might achieve WITH huge reductions in carbon emissions. Without reductions we are expected to overshoot two degrees by a large margin, which is thought likely to trigger the release of more carbon from natural sources.

"the UK population must reduce their per–capita emissions to about 2 tonnes per annum" You don't appear to give a reference for this or explain how you determine it, unless I've missed something.

Rather than work out what your estimated 5 tonnes carbon dioxide reduction would entail, might it be more useful to describe what might be consumed within the 2 tonnes per capita that you say would be acceptable? Then we can all see how far our existing lifestyles would need to change, which is surely the point.

The per capita 'allowance' would presumably include indirect consumption which it's difficult for us to control. For example I'm obliged to help support an army of bureaucrats, quangocrats and academics doing largely pointless 'work'. Am I to be held responsible for my share of their emissions? I'd be pretty cheesed off if I had to forego any heating at all in order to allow their offices to be kept at the approved temperature.

That's enough to be going on with I think. It's a fascinating exercise to carry out so worth getting the method more or less right.