Hello folks,
In the Australian state of Victoria we have two elections to participate in this year: federal and state. Neither election has been called yet and both are due to occur this year and both have an incumbant Labor government. With the as yet un-elected Brumby state government plagued with issues, such as: MyKI (mine still doesn't work and the ticketting system is still holding my $50) the appaulingly delivered transport ticketting system; the water de-salination plant , and; various potential corruption issues such as building and development dumb-ass Justine Maddon, it's a surprise the opossition Liberals can't wage a decent shredding of the Labor government.
At the Federal level it's more of the same except with deaths thrown in: the appaulingly delivered home insulation scheme (four deaths and 93 house fires); an environmental push to curb contributions to Climate Change by man-kind that defied any criticism of it's factual basis, and an ETS scheme that was so ill-concieved that even the Labor party itself had to dump it; questionable policy decisions such as the mining Tax, and; so many Number One Priorities, that it has become a national joke.
Compared to Rudd, Brumby is good government. But really, we should have a better choice on our ballot papers than currently exists.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
03 June 2010
13 December 2009
Conservasion 2: What a mess - lets clean up the environment of environmentalism
What a mess - lets clean up the environment of environmentalism
In Australia we have a terrible mis-balance of power toward stupidity in Government.
If we only get the 'Government we deserve' then we must have done something really bad to have the karma bus deliver the sort of policy that we currently enjoy in Australia.
If the Liberal's GST wasn't enough, now the current Labor government wants to implement a carbon trading scheme that will push up electricity prices, while our taxes will go to the 'poor' coal and other polluting industries, because they will be 'disadvantaged'!!! So, the public get slugged twice! As this interesting article in The Age states,
Government's job is to manage this death of the coal industry and ensure that a stable supply of essential electricity is provided to the community through a transition period. Again, in my view, any other approach is a fool's paradise if convincing ourselves that we're doing some good when carbon emissions remain unchanged; polluters keep polluting and we pay for the privilege.
What the source of our energy needs will be has been discussed in previous posts, however I'm sure I have not predicted the eventual way forward, rather than simply a display of my preferences.
Interestingly some Liberal Party members are re-introducing the potential for nuclear power - thank goodness. As many are re-thinking nuclear power, I believe there is a chance Australia will come to it's senses. And maybe some politicians are leading, rather than following the masses.
A review of power options is available here and it also contains a link to a report by Professor Lanzen of Sydney University and Sydney's Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis. This report details in well referenced academic terms the potential ways forward for electricity generation and summarises the current research available as at 2009. While the Australian Uranium Association had asked Professor Lenzen to review the most up-to-date literature on electricity generation technologies, reading the document shows it to be a thorough study of available options.
Give it a read.
In Australia we have a terrible mis-balance of power toward stupidity in Government.
If we only get the 'Government we deserve' then we must have done something really bad to have the karma bus deliver the sort of policy that we currently enjoy in Australia.
If the Liberal's GST wasn't enough, now the current Labor government wants to implement a carbon trading scheme that will push up electricity prices, while our taxes will go to the 'poor' coal and other polluting industries, because they will be 'disadvantaged'!!! So, the public get slugged twice! As this interesting article in The Age states,
"The problem with the Rudd Government's scheme is that many economists now argue it has become so watered down by concessions to special interest groups and incumbent polluters with highly paid lobbyists that the market signal has been dulled to the point of meaninglessness."I believe a carbon tax is a much better idea in order to reduce carbon emissions. If an industry is so polluting that it can't sustain itself with the tax impacts, and users can't afford the electricity price hikes to (again) pay for these industries, then like those automotive and banking companies in the United States that needed bailing out, these coal and electricity producing companies should die. Adapt, or Die.
Government's job is to manage this death of the coal industry and ensure that a stable supply of essential electricity is provided to the community through a transition period. Again, in my view, any other approach is a fool's paradise if convincing ourselves that we're doing some good when carbon emissions remain unchanged; polluters keep polluting and we pay for the privilege.
What the source of our energy needs will be has been discussed in previous posts, however I'm sure I have not predicted the eventual way forward, rather than simply a display of my preferences.
Interestingly some Liberal Party members are re-introducing the potential for nuclear power - thank goodness. As many are re-thinking nuclear power, I believe there is a chance Australia will come to it's senses. And maybe some politicians are leading, rather than following the masses.
A review of power options is available here and it also contains a link to a report by Professor Lanzen of Sydney University and Sydney's Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis. This report details in well referenced academic terms the potential ways forward for electricity generation and summarises the current research available as at 2009. While the Australian Uranium Association had asked Professor Lenzen to review the most up-to-date literature on electricity generation technologies, reading the document shows it to be a thorough study of available options.
Give it a read.
29 October 2009
When will we learn - clean coal is dirty
In today's Australian newspaper, the "Australian Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute" tells us that clean coal is too expensive to establish. A carbon price of $60 a tonne (I wonder how many minutes of coal fired operation that is) is required before it's viable.
Then we bury the carbon underground, where there is a risk of leakage apparently. So I wonder why we aren't burying nuclear waste and having a cleaner type of power to start of with?
Oh yes, nuclear is "bad". We can sell our yellow (cake) overseas but we (the intelligent nation - with our very own education revolution) can't use it ourselves. So 2030 is the date upon which we have estimates of when carbon will reach this price.. yet even in the most dire of predictions we can have working nuclear power plants up and running by 2020. So, we're willing to keep on stalling and throwing our arms up in the air are hanging onto this idea of clean coal while opportunity goes begging.
Fucking amazing.
Yep, tell the thousands of patients per day who benefit from nuclear medicine every day. It's really bad!!! Attach the word nuclear to something and see people cringe, or frown. Why? Early technology developments have problems and the cost of not maintain these facilities (like when your entire politico-economic structure falls down - ala Communist Russia) is clear. Yet today some advanced countries like Germany and France have large parts of their power requirements safely generated by nuclear power. In Germany's case it's over 50%.
Australia, get smarter, get wiser. Nuclear isn't "bad" it's smarter technology and cleaner. It's our way to being environmentally sustainable - keeping our development and advanced status in the world while engaging in an environmentally responsible generation of electricity.
It doesn't take a $100million a year institute - even Kevin and Julia's education revolution should be able to tell us that.
Incidentally why is this an 'Australian Global' institute, is it like The World Series, where only American's play? Is this Australian's Global institute that only Australians are part of...?
Then we bury the carbon underground, where there is a risk of leakage apparently. So I wonder why we aren't burying nuclear waste and having a cleaner type of power to start of with?
Oh yes, nuclear is "bad". We can sell our yellow (cake) overseas but we (the intelligent nation - with our very own education revolution) can't use it ourselves. So 2030 is the date upon which we have estimates of when carbon will reach this price.. yet even in the most dire of predictions we can have working nuclear power plants up and running by 2020. So, we're willing to keep on stalling and throwing our arms up in the air are hanging onto this idea of clean coal while opportunity goes begging.
Fucking amazing.
Yep, tell the thousands of patients per day who benefit from nuclear medicine every day. It's really bad!!! Attach the word nuclear to something and see people cringe, or frown. Why? Early technology developments have problems and the cost of not maintain these facilities (like when your entire politico-economic structure falls down - ala Communist Russia) is clear. Yet today some advanced countries like Germany and France have large parts of their power requirements safely generated by nuclear power. In Germany's case it's over 50%.
Australia, get smarter, get wiser. Nuclear isn't "bad" it's smarter technology and cleaner. It's our way to being environmentally sustainable - keeping our development and advanced status in the world while engaging in an environmentally responsible generation of electricity.
It doesn't take a $100million a year institute - even Kevin and Julia's education revolution should be able to tell us that.
Incidentally why is this an 'Australian Global' institute, is it like The World Series, where only American's play? Is this Australian's Global institute that only Australians are part of...?
21 January 2009
Conservation One
Good day dear reader,
There are two things I can think of straight out of the bag that will help Australians lower their carbon foot-print and help keep our air that little bit cleaner.
1) Solar power. Okay this is not new news. However some years ago I came up with a plan (typical table napkin calculation stuff) as to how Australians wouldn't need to pay electricity bills ever again. It's detailed below.
2) Nuclear power. Okay, contentious ... in this country. To be blunt though, when we are the major holder of uranium deposits world-wide and we are happy to mine and export it, we should damn well use it ourselves. I also think there's a strong case for howwe go about doing these things so we are environmentally responsible AND build our economy at the same time.
For this blog.. I'll look at Solar power first.
My somewhat idealistic plan looks a little like this:
You have a goal: power all Australian homes with solar power
You have a time line: 5 years
You have a budget: $32 billion (some years later this turned into the amount given as tax cuts)
Stage One:
First of all you headhunt: Wanted! The best solar power minds in the world. Come and work for a stable government run organisation where you'll be work with a team of highly skilled scientists and engineers. You will be provided with top flight housing, income for 18 months, all relocation expenses and an opportuinity to live in one of the worlds most appealing countries. Oportunities for lucrative bonuses.
We find 20 to 30 of the world's leading solar and or scientific or engineering minds. We test them out and place them in a number of teams. Each team is equiped with a laboratory and a hefty expense account for equipment and R&D expenses. Start the clock NOW.
Each team has exactly 12 months to come up with the solar cell to beat all other solar cells. It must be a) the most efficient cell - producing maximum stable electical flow under various solar conditions and b) tough - to last a long time (say ten years) and different weather conditions and impacts etc.
To get these people will take 6 months - hire a firm to do it.
The engineering / science dudes get 12 months (plus time to relocate) and then there's time to judge the best solar cell. This solar technolofy is owned by the government.
The winning team members each get $1,000,000 and an opportunuity to move here permanently. There's the incentive. Rules: no cheating. Technologies derived will be owned by the Australian people and administered by the Australian Government.
Stage Two:
Manufacture. The Australian people have funded this venture so each home will get it's power from the super efficient, Australian government owned, solar cells. When Raj and I were discussing this, we discussed a plan the South Australian gov had at one stage where they'd provide half the funding for solar power to a home, which at the time was around $8,000 (total of $16,000). With efficiencies in manufacturing and bulk production, we figured we could get that cost down to about $4,000 a home. That's cells, regulators, batteries to store for night time use and hook up to grid.
You set up two or three large manufacturing hubs. For starters the La Trobe Valley would be a great place to set up a large factory complex; I mean HUGE and get all the unemployed down there in Gippsland (Sale etc.) working. A few more around the country. Cuts down transportation costs and also less down time if something goes wrong at one site (contingency). After manufacture and fitting of all these to each Australian home (two to three years later) start exporting.
Stage Three:
Export and protection of international patient.
Australians, like the British are good at giving ideas away and not protecting their intelectual property (okay the yanks stole a lot of British ideas). Start earning abck some of that huge investment in solar by selling to the rest of the world. Resist the tempation to send jobs overseas and actually start supporting Australian manufacturing again.
Rigerously protect in international law courts the design oand principles of the patiented cell technology.
Result: Homes are powered and some offices probably as well. Still there are many office blocks that will draw on the grid that will require energy from elsewhere.. and that should come from.... See you next time.
There are two things I can think of straight out of the bag that will help Australians lower their carbon foot-print and help keep our air that little bit cleaner.
1) Solar power. Okay this is not new news. However some years ago I came up with a plan (typical table napkin calculation stuff) as to how Australians wouldn't need to pay electricity bills ever again. It's detailed below.
2) Nuclear power. Okay, contentious ... in this country. To be blunt though, when we are the major holder of uranium deposits world-wide and we are happy to mine and export it, we should damn well use it ourselves. I also think there's a strong case for howwe go about doing these things so we are environmentally responsible AND build our economy at the same time.
For this blog.. I'll look at Solar power first.
My somewhat idealistic plan looks a little like this:
You have a goal: power all Australian homes with solar power
You have a time line: 5 years
You have a budget: $32 billion (some years later this turned into the amount given as tax cuts)
Stage One:
First of all you headhunt: Wanted! The best solar power minds in the world. Come and work for a stable government run organisation where you'll be work with a team of highly skilled scientists and engineers. You will be provided with top flight housing, income for 18 months, all relocation expenses and an opportuinity to live in one of the worlds most appealing countries. Oportunities for lucrative bonuses.
We find 20 to 30 of the world's leading solar and or scientific or engineering minds. We test them out and place them in a number of teams. Each team is equiped with a laboratory and a hefty expense account for equipment and R&D expenses. Start the clock NOW.
Each team has exactly 12 months to come up with the solar cell to beat all other solar cells. It must be a) the most efficient cell - producing maximum stable electical flow under various solar conditions and b) tough - to last a long time (say ten years) and different weather conditions and impacts etc.
To get these people will take 6 months - hire a firm to do it.
The engineering / science dudes get 12 months (plus time to relocate) and then there's time to judge the best solar cell. This solar technolofy is owned by the government.
The winning team members each get $1,000,000 and an opportunuity to move here permanently. There's the incentive. Rules: no cheating. Technologies derived will be owned by the Australian people and administered by the Australian Government.
Stage Two:
Manufacture. The Australian people have funded this venture so each home will get it's power from the super efficient, Australian government owned, solar cells. When Raj and I were discussing this, we discussed a plan the South Australian gov had at one stage where they'd provide half the funding for solar power to a home, which at the time was around $8,000 (total of $16,000). With efficiencies in manufacturing and bulk production, we figured we could get that cost down to about $4,000 a home. That's cells, regulators, batteries to store for night time use and hook up to grid.
You set up two or three large manufacturing hubs. For starters the La Trobe Valley would be a great place to set up a large factory complex; I mean HUGE and get all the unemployed down there in Gippsland (Sale etc.) working. A few more around the country. Cuts down transportation costs and also less down time if something goes wrong at one site (contingency). After manufacture and fitting of all these to each Australian home (two to three years later) start exporting.
Stage Three:
Export and protection of international patient.
Australians, like the British are good at giving ideas away and not protecting their intelectual property (okay the yanks stole a lot of British ideas). Start earning abck some of that huge investment in solar by selling to the rest of the world. Resist the tempation to send jobs overseas and actually start supporting Australian manufacturing again.
Rigerously protect in international law courts the design oand principles of the patiented cell technology.
Result: Homes are powered and some offices probably as well. Still there are many office blocks that will draw on the grid that will require energy from elsewhere.. and that should come from.... See you next time.
01 May 2008
What's In a Bulb?
Hello Mr Turnbull and fellow Australians.
I'm a conservationist. I believe in saving water and rainwater tanks (even back when my local council deemed them to be illegal - Whitehorse Council!); recycling - especially composting; growing your own veggies and alternative energy sources. So... why do I have a problem with the proposed laws against the incandescent light bulb?
There are some reasonably under-reported (in the commercial media) but well known problems with the mercury content of energy saving light bulbs (see http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind1.htm for details) and links.
My concerns are two fold:
- The government again appears to be making laws to restrict my freedom to chose a type of product. They are proposing to do this for the good of the environment but frankly I trust my own ability to make a decision on this above that of a beurocrat or another environmentalist.It's interfering with my freedoms.
- This appears to be another example of poor homework leading to less than adequate decision making. I'd like to know a few things about the new compact fluorescent bulbs:
Do they really save energy?
Sure, at the user end they have the deal reasonably well proven. a) they last longer and b) they consume less electricity. However how much energy does it take to make one? It's the build end of the equation that I can't seem to find some facts upon. I believe this is because of where they are made.In China power costs (especially coal costs) and labour costs are not the same as they are in Australia. So to find out how much energy is required to build 10,000 incandescentlight bulbs, as compared with 10,000 compact fluorescent bulbs is hard to tell in ideal conditions however economies of energy are different (and changing) in China as compared to most capitalist countries, so problems arise in calculating the costs applied to:
- electricty to shape and make the product,
- man hours, and
- materials to build the bulbs.
Are they energy (or environmentally) efficient at the disposal end? Or to put it in simple terms
Are they safe, or more safe than incandescentlight bulbs?
As I mentioned at the start, it is known that there is some mercury content in the new compact fluorescent bulbs.
In sum, before shooting from the hip and applying laws to a populace: know the facts, check the fine print, let the public know and then let us decide. If it's in our best interests (saves the environment, saves energy and money) we'll switch of our own accord. After all isn't that what a market economy is all about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)