JungleJames

Again, I have never suggested how much extreme greenies know or don't know. I have never put forward a straw man's argument. I have not put forward an argument at all in this case. You keep reading too much into what I say. Which I'm baffled by, as you seem to be too intelligent for that. I only said that certain people would like Mr Jupiter's use of a single term, and would use it for their favourite items (in this case, batteries and electricity). I've also said we are probably all guilty of similar. I have also never suggested how much I do or do not know. Again, reading too much. It was one very simple statement, which is not untrue, and somehow has been taken way out of proportion. But if it helps, we will take Greta out of the extreme camp, even if she does come across as such at times. But, like it or not, the extremes do exist. On all sides I will add. One of which, I most definitely am not. I'm nicely in the middle, looking at it from all sides. Oh, and give me HVO at the pumps (of which I can only find a couple) and I would fill my car up with HVO all day long, despite the extra cost. Although I would like a better idea of where it comes from.

Again, I never argued that. I'm sure I said I'm not claiming who does or does not know what. I have no idea how much hard line greenies know. It was purely over what they say in public, and how they would like Mr Jupiter's use of the term 'carbon neutral'. You are reading far too much into what I said.

Hold on. Where in my post did I query any figures? I never once argued the merits of either power source. I specifically didn't. I only said one thing. Greta and her disciples will only want to tell you the good side. I even pointed out how most of us are guilty of it in other forms. I also never mentioned whether everybody does know the full story or not. I only said that certain people won't divulge it. Well, why would they. Batteries may or may not be the answer to the meaning of life, I never argued that. So what have I said is BS? Nothing. You were reading far too much into what I said. Nothing has suggested what I do or do not believe in. Nothing has suggested how much people know or don't know. You just thought it did. It is a bit like greenies and nuclear. They hate it, so they only tell you the bad points. Politicians and any policy they come up with- They will only tell you the good points. Opposition- will only tell you the bad points. Look back. All I have done is pointed out why Greta would love Mr Jupiter and his way of looking at carbon neutral when it came to the buzz words of electricity and batteries. Whether you would or wouldn't do something wasn't initially part of your argument though. Hence I took it to an extreme to point out the error in how you looked at carbon neutrality. Or basically, how you ignored the lifecycle costs of fuels. Hence why HVO is deemed to reduce net CO2 by 90%, not 100% as you claim.

Ok. Last post of mine here. Hard line greenies luv anything that has electricity or batteries in the name. If you say you have a car with batteries in it, Greta gets all excited. But we all know batteries produce CO2 during production. Well, everything does. But Greta and her disciples won't want to admit this. So, your form of carbon neutral (ignore the carbon used to produce stuff) is exactly what the greenies would use, so as to make their favourite items look better than they are. I suppose we are all guilty of it in some form or another. Ignore the bad bits of things that you like. Like Michael Jackson fans ignoring his bad side, greenies ignore the bad side of batteries! So in that regard, the true term of carbon neutral is the fairest of the 2!! Let us see the whole picture.

And equally, your use of the term is what full on greenies would use when describing batteries. See, it can go both ways. The whole point of the term, is so you can see the whole life cycle. Let's say I produced enough CO2 to kill the world, just to produce enough 'green' fuel to propel me a few miles. Woohoo, carbon neutral journey.

I want nuclear plants in my back yard. Used to have 2 within half hour. Unfortunately don't have any working ones now. Nuclear all the way. Scrap the woodchips. The forests are needed for other stuff, and once you've added more nuclear, you don't need the woodchips. The least bad solution you say- Nuclear.

Agree entirely. I wasn't of course thinking of the CO2 we breath out!! You can have your carbon neutral for that!!

Haha. No, I don't believe it would!! I think you would need to grow a completely new forest the same size. I think, although could be wrong, they may claim these pellets are nearly carbon neutral (shows how silly the term can be) because the pellets themselves only release carbon the trees have themselves helped remove from the atmosphere. Perhaps if the forests were regrown, they may have an argument. Although it would take many many years to look like it did. Well that already shows these claims are probably false, as the initial claim was these trees were too diseased to be used as intended. Then during, was it the Panorama program looking into Drax, something else entirely was claimed. I think it was also found a lot of these forested areas were mature areas that had taken many years to come about. Fast growing, I wouldn't be so sure about. Anyways, the main point being, nothing is carbon neutral. Nothing is perfectly green. Not your electric boat or HVO. Some are better than others, with HVO having the possibility to be one of the better ones. Depending on how it is sourced.

This whole argument started from Mr Jupiter claiming over and over that it is carbon neutral. When he was pulled up on this, it was all taken out of proportion. HVO will see, as most of us accept, about a 90% reduction in net CO2. I'm not sure if that takes into account the reduction in trees caused by any HVO produced via deforestation. Yes, it has ended up with you either: 1- inventing your own meaning of carbon neutral Or 2- telling blatant fibs. It is debatable if it is better than coal. These wood chips are leading to unnecessary deforestation in places like Canada. So not only are we emitting the carbon stored in the trees, but we now have less trees and so no ability to absorb the CO2 produced by the wood chips. You are probably better off keeping the Welsh coal mines open, and keeping the Canadian forests to help offset it.

Rishi has been splashing the savings since the day he scrapped it. Only problem, the plans he comes up with are pie in the sky, and last days before quietly being dropped. Nobody will see any benefit. Anyway, we don't have the money as it hasn't been borrowed yet. It would have been borrowed when we needed it for HS2

Nice one good sir. You went into a lot more detail than I'd be able to. I'd actually forgotten about the AWS magnets prior to speed restrictions as well. One thing to perhaps mention for anyone still thinking the job is easy. The route knowledge of the driver means all we mention makes no difference to the driver. He could be approaching in thick thick fog, seeing nothing. But he or she knows where every single speed restriction is. Remember, back in the day, trains didnt have headlights!!

I'm not sure who it was, but someone seemed to make out that having these so called auto brakes, made the job easy. Incorrect, because if you were trying to make your job easy by utilising them, you wouldn't get anywhere near completing your training. As for Croydon. Depends if any sharp bends have TPWS beforehand. If for example, Morpeth speed limit does not have TPWS, then the same thing could happen. Maybe Capt Pegg will know if there are TPWS grids before the Morpeth curve. I still stand by the comment that ATP is the closest to automatic brakes. But I see your point. Of course, Thameslink I believe may be fully automatic in the core. But you can't claim you can drive just because you can sit in the drivers seat through the central core. Likewise as pointed out numerous times. The original comment itself is way off, because you would not be deemed competent if you had to rely on AWS, driver vigilance, or TPWS

Green produces the 'ding'. Double yellow, single yellow and red produce the klaxon type sound. If you don't acknowledge the klaxon the brakes will be applied. Likewise most signals have TPWS grids prior to them. They activate when the signal is red (I think its only at red anyway). Go over these at too high a speed, and the brakes will apply.

That sounds about right. Semi automatic. Train can drive itself, but driver has to be there

It depends what you deem automatic brakes then. People say the brakes are applied automatically. But in reality it is still caused by drivers' actions. Tracy massively undervalued the job. She also made out it was non physical. The only time you could suggest Tracy has any point at all, is for the very very short section of the Thameslink core. But no driver only does that section. Also, it is best to pretend your so called automatic brakes are not there. Because if you keep having the vigilance device applying the brakes, your boss will soon want an explanation. It is designed to stop a train when the driver is unconscious. Likewise if you get a TPWS activation having not made any attempt to slow the train down, then you are going to SPAD. When they do the download and see you didn't touch the brakes yourself, you will find your so called automatic brakes don't actually save your job. So call them what you like, but they are not a part of your driving. They are there to stop a runaway train with an unconscious driver, and to try and help stop a driver killing people if he or she screws up.