Thursday, October 02, 2008

Black Francis / Frank Black / ex. Pixies - Areena, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Wednesday 1st October 2008.

Black Francis / Frank Black / ex. Pixies lead singer and rhythm guitarist. Areena, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Wednesday 1st October 2008. Supported by Violent Soho.

Charles / Frank / Black and his band know how to rock. Some might say that this happening tonight. Given what I'm about to say I'll throw in that there were some nice sounds coming out of them and for the most I was grooving.

Now to give a one word conclusion of the night - dissapointing.

I have loved Pixies and Frank since the early 90's (and a bit upset I didn't catch them from the very beginning in the late 80's). The guy is a legend. He is is a musical genius. All the sounds are amazing. The sounds were certainly there and I really enjoyed the night. However when I walked out I just felt like there was something missing - though judging by the feeling, there were many things missing. I've walked out of so many concerts in shock at the brilliance I've just experienced. I just didn't feel that way tonight.

The reasons I didn't feel satisfied are listed below. Perhaps I'm being picky though I can only go on the feeling i had. Ultimately he's been playing the crowds for over 20 years and should by now have a good idea about how to get everyone moving in his time. He couldn't pull that tonight.

  • Charles/Frank/Black did not interact with the Crowd. About 1/2 way through he got up to the microphone and said "I had a sheet of anecodes but I left them at the hotel". And then quickly introduced the 2 other band members. Maybe he nodded to the crowd as they went off the stage also.
  • He played nothing from before the last 2 or 3 albums (this would cover maybe the last 5 or 6 years). Aged rockers are seen by many people for their "hits and memories". So many of his newer songs sound like older ones but we were left waiting for "Los Angeles" or "10 Percenter". Forget Pixies tracks - that was never going to happen (would have been nice though)
  • No Encore. They played for close to 1.5 hours and then left the stage. The crowd stood there banging and cheering for about 4 mins before the fluro lights came on. We were like "wow, this has never happened before". This was the anti-clincher - if he'd done an encore but didnt' talk or play older songs it wouldn't have mattered as much. This is what helped me cast the night as dissapointing.


I just though arrogant fucker. I should give him the benefit of the doubt though - he might have had heart palpatations or some other concern.

I hope he's ok.




BTW I haven't posted for fricken yonks. Reason:

  • Have a 5 month old daughter (born 3rd May 2008)
  • I've been involved in Environmental activities - I've done posts to http://climateactionbrisbane.blogspot.com/. To round off this point - I am extremely scared about the future of the human race and all current life on planet Earth. Little is giving me hope that we will avoid the catastrophe we seem to be approaching. In my living memory, there has been little in the way of fixing up or restoring the environment in contrast to the amount of destruction there has been. Even people who would not intentionally damage the environemnt do so through complacency. Society and namely the companies in it care more about profit than people or the planet.
  • I've been cocentrating on finishing a project at work that has been going on for 8 years. We're in the last couple months and its behind schedule;
  • I've been trying to develop my software engineering and software development skills.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

See blog entries at ClimateActionBrisbane

Gidday all loyal reader(s),

Due to my involvement with Walk Against Warming and Climate Action Brisbane, I'm writing most blog entries at http://climateactionbrisbane.blogspot.com/.

Please go check out NationalEnqirer and other posters there.

Cheers,

Brooke

Greenpeace - defending the whales

Greenpeace site for their Whale protection activities including a YouTube video of their activist operations in the Southern Oceans.

http://whales.greenpeace.org/.

Check it out to help become fully aware of what they are trying to protect, why, where and what with.

The Truth About Kimberly-Clark's Forestry Practices .

From the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) - The Truth About Kimberly-Clark's Forestry Practices .

Reproduced here as I would like to highlight another evil company. The list of such companies is in exhaustable unfortunately. We will work through them one at a time and hope we can help to force them to change their evil ways. The planet (Gaia) cannot take the assault for much longer and this fowl attitude and terrible actions has to stop now.

I link to it to force it further up the Google search list.


The tissue paper giant's policies may be good on paper, but its practices are bad on trees.

Many NRDC activists have sent messages to Kimberly-Clark, one of the world's largest producers of tissue paper products, urging the company to help protect North America's last natural forests. In a reply that Kimberly-Clark has been sending to activists, the company claims that it is committed to sustainable forestry and to preserving ecologically significant old-growth forests. But in practice, the company continues to purchase fiber from clearcut ecologically important boreal forests in Ontario and Alberta. Even more important, Kimberly-Clark has made no commitment to increase significantly the amount of post-consumer recycled materials used to make its products.

Below is a list of Kimberly-Clark's assertions, with NRDC's responses to each one.

What Kimberly-Clark Says


Kimberly-Clark says that less than 15 percent of the fiber it uses globally comes from the Canadian boreal forest.

The Facts


Kimberly-Clark sold its North American logging operations in 2004, but based on the company's own numbers, NRDC estimates that it purchases between 20 percent and 30 percent of its fiber from logging companies operating in the boreal forest in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The company purchases roughly 20 percent of its fiber from its former mill in Terrace Bay, Ontario. We believe that in addition to that, Kimberly-Clark buys a total of 10 percent or more of its pulp from West Fraser's mill in Hinton, Alberta, and from Millar Western logging operations in Saskatchewan. Some of these boreal forest ecosystems have been evolving since the end of the last ice age -- some 10,000 years ago -- and have never been logged. As the largest tissue paper product manufacturer in the world, Kimberly-Clark has the opportunity to be a leader in its industry and influence the way other companies treat the boreal forest.


What Kimberly-Clark Says


Kimberly-Clark claims that its use of virgin and recycled fiber is in line with industry practices.

The Facts


Kimberly-Clark relies on recycled sources for just 19 percent of the pulp it uses to make toilet paper, facial tissue, napkins and paper towels in North America. Yet the tissue paper product industry uses an average of 60 percent recycled material in manufacturing. Most of Kimberly-Clark's at-home tissue brands, such as Kleenex, contain no recycled fiber at all.

In stark contrast to Kimberly-Clark's practices, Montreal-based Cascades meets 96 percent of its pulp requirements with recycled fiber and has pledged to meet the majority of the remaining 4 percent with Forest Stewardship Council-certified pulp by 2007. Vermont-based Seventh Generation sells its 100 percent recycled consumer tissue products throughout North America, as does Toronto-based Atlantic Packaging. Marcal Paper Mills' 100 percent recycled facial tissue, made from 30 percent post-consumer waste, is sold in supermarkets throughout the northeastern United States and in office supply stores nationwide.


What Kimberly-Clark Says


Kimberly-Clark claims to support third-party forest certification and to hold suppliers to high standards of sustainability.

The Facts


Currently, Kimberly-Clark buys most of its pulp from logging operations that have not been certified under the Forest Stewardship Council's management and certification system -- the only credible measure of sustainability. The Forest Stewardship Council incorporates rigorous environmental, social and economic requirements for sustainable forest management and is truly independent from the logging industry.

A sustainable forest is one that is managed according to high environmental and social standards, which protect both the ecology of the forest and the cultural and social values they provide to the local communities that depend upon them. Yet instead of supporting these principles, Kimberly-Clark continues to purchase pulp from West Fraser's Alberta operations, which log in the habitat of the threatened woodland caribou, a species at risk of extinction.

Kimberly-Clark says that it will purchase FSC-certified fiber where it is available and meets its product performance and fiber cost requirements. If Kimberly-Clark is truly committed to high standards of sustainability, though, it should commit to purchasing all of the virgin fiber it uses from FSC-certified logging operations.

Consumers have the power in their pocketbooks to demand greener products

by Kim Barto
published January 18, 2007 12:15 am
in the Citizen Times (Canada).

For those in North America / Canada, the NRDC site has a Shoppers Guide to Home Tissue Products" (see site for much more). They also name the business not named in the Citizen Times article - Kimberly-Clark if you couldn't guess.

NRDC has a page to Tell Kimberly-Clark to stop destroying forests for toilet paper.


Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) say yes. They’ve launched a massive campaign to protest against a major tissue and toilet paper corporation for using virgin wood fiber to make a throwaway product.

These environmental groups argue that the company buys pulp from logging operations that destroy forests and wildlife habitats through clear-cutting, and that very little recycled paper is included in its consumer goods. For the skeptical, the Greenpeace and NRDC Web sites offer graphic photos of the environmental devastation caused by paper manufacturing.

Trees from Canada’s ancient boreal forest, for example, are being chopped down only to end up in bathrooms across the continent. This is among the largest intact forest ecosystems left on earth, according to the NRDC, and is home to more than 500 communities of indigenous people who rely on the land for food and income.

The boreal forest also houses hundreds of animal species, including 30 percent of North America’s songbirds, according to Greenpeace. And while some people may find it hard to sympathize with caribou living thousands of miles away, these ancient forests are a crucial part of human survival, as well. According to The Washington Post, the forest absorbs millions of tons of carbon dioxide, helping to stabilize the climate.

So far, 700 businesses (mostly small) have signed on to a boycott, pledging to use only paper that has been recycled or made from sustainably-harvested wood.

...

Read the article.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Uses for old recycled batteries

I use recycled batteries in my digital camera as I'm not willing to do the environmental damage caused by continuously purchasing disposables (initial production cost and then disposing of them after they die). The problem with rechargables is that they tend to lose their ability to hold charge after a period of time / number of recharges. I buy a new set of 4 about every 12 months or so. The girl at Ted's Camera Shop said that she uses her old ones in her remote controls.


When I got home I put the old ones in a new wall clock I got for Christama and it is still going! They degraded to the point of showing zero charge when put in the camera, after only maybe 2 days. It is obvious that digital cameras require so much charge well beyond what these had it recycled batteries would hold.

So there you go folks - use your old recycleable batteries in lower power consuming devices including your remotes and wall clocks. After a while of buying rechargable batteries for your digital camera you should have enough for every other device in the house. I'm sure they will last for a decade or more (recharging will likely be required every now and then). Bye bye disposable batteries!

Web references on recycling


Friday, January 12, 2007

Japanese researchers suggest Greenpeace are wrong re: whaling not supported

This article "YAHOO POLL SHOWS MORE SUPPORT FOR WHALING IN JAPAN" says that the ICT (Institute of Cetacean Research) shows that the Japanese do support whaling, contrary to Greenpeace's claims.

Quote:

CR Director General Hiroshi Hatanaka said that using Greenpeace's own data, the opposite was true. TOKYO, JAPAN, Jan. 10 -/E-Wire/-- Greenpeace is misleading the public with claims that 70 percent of Japanese don't support whaling, the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) said today.

ICR Director General Hiroshi Hatanaka said that using Greenpeace's own data, the opposite was true.

In November 2006, Internet giant Yahoo Japan held an online poll that showed 90 percent public support for a return to commercial whaling. In the recent poll, 21,221 people cast a vote, with 19,001 agreeing with sustainable commercial whaling and 2220 opposed. In Japanese only: http://polls.dailynews.yahoo.co.jp/quiz/quizresults.php?poll_id=120&wv=1&typeFlag=1


That may be so but I suggest two things:

  1. That the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) are the group collaborating on the "Scientific Whaling" which the world believes is just a front and excuse for commercial whaling.
  2. That the data actually supports the claims of Environmentalists. That the Japanese want to perform commercial whaling to feed the hunger of those Japanese who can no longer get off on just tuna (which incidently is itself facing extinction in many tuna species in many parts of the world).

    If this is all true then it is another of the human race's behaviours which needs to change if we are to survive. People might contest that it doesn't matter if a species is wiped out, aslong as we had fun doing it. These people do not understand the web of life and the earth as a living organism (Gaia Hypothesis).


I'll suggest something else: that Whales are beaching themselves, in order to die to show protest at what the human race is doing, much the same way as some of the refugees in australia have killed themselves as a protest against the Australian Government's locking up of those who are fleeing their lives of uncertainty in their native countries (refugees), and arriving in Australia since it is a "free" country. This beaching is a longish bow to draw, but if tru then supports the Gaia Hypothesis)

I'm sure Greenpeace have something to say on this study. I can't find anything directly though I'm sure the responses will be coming out soon. In the meantime I did find this which does show that if the Japanese DO support whaling, then they aren't being told all the information about why and what it all means:

Letter to ICR (From December 2005).

Whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is conducted using our (Japanese) tax money. However, Japanese citizens have not been informed by you about what is really happening in the waters around Antarctica. For instance, the fact that whaling is conducted in the Antarctic whale sanctuary, designated by the International Wahling Commision, and that your organization with a Japanese company, Kyodo Senpaku, are the only ones conducting whaling in the Sanctuary has not been well communicated. Also the hunting of 10 fin whale this season, an endangered species, and the more than doubling of the quota for minke whale to 935, have also not been well communicated to Japanese citizens and media.

I'm sure this will go back and forth for a while as the various parties fight it out. I think that the views, opinions and understandings of the Greenies should be given more acknowledgment. These people have been touting for decades (atleast since 1970 and no doubt earlier) that the world is in crisis and we need to stop over-fishing, over-exploiting our forests and natural landscapes, we need to stop releasing toxic substances into the environment and so on. They have been laughed at, insulted, killed or maimed in many cases, but it seems that they (and me too now!) are correct. The world is looking in a terrible way with climate change, species extinction, polution and the social chaos which is seeming to go hand-in-hand. I'd suggest that we need to "stop the world" (let those get off who want to) and look at ourselves from a distance and change the way we do things. Tell idiots like Bush to go hide in some under-gound hidey hole somewhere and not come out. These people are criminals in moral terms, and if they do surface, they should be dealt with as the criminals they are.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

NASA Finally Goes Metric

Thankgod! Now the whole USA might come to its senses and join the rest of the world!



When NASA returns astronauts to the Moon, the mission will be measured kilometers, not miles.

The agency has decided to use metric units for all operations on the lunar surface, according to a statement released today.

The change will standardize parts and tools. It means Russian wrenches could be used to fix an air leak in a U.S.-built habitat. It will also make communications easier, such as when determining how far to send a rover for a science project.

NASA has ostensibly used the metric system since about 1990, the statement said, but English units are still employed on some missions, and a few projects use both. NASA uses both English and metric aboard the International Space Station.

The dual strategy led to the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter robotic probe in 1999; a contractor provided thruster firing data in English units while NASA was calculating in metric.

The decision comes after a series of meetings between NASA and 13 other space agencies around the world, where metric measurements rule.

Read the Article.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Gene Foods, Struggling in EU, Don't Live Up to Hype, FOE Says

National Enquirer's preamble:

GI crops primarily benefit the Bio-Engineering companies who develop the seed, because:

  • The farmers either aren't allowed by contract to use the seeds grown in the next crop, or more likely is that the seeds are genetically created to not be able to be grown.
  • Part of the purpose of GI crops is to be resistant to bugs. But the bugs will grow resistance against the resistance. So which company will need to continue to produce seeds that are resistant to those bugs?



For our world, which is in severe trouble with climate change and everything that is resulting from that, we can no longer afford to prop up these giant multinational companies whose only purpose is to get richer.

----
By Adam Mitchell

Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Gene-altered crops haven't lived up to ``hype'' and or succeeded in winning widespread acceptance, especially in Europe, according to a report published by environmentalist group Friends of the Earth International.

Genetically modified crops have ``failed to boost yields, reduce pesticide use or address challenges faced by farmers,'' today's report says. According to the study, 70 percent of the world's ``large-scale'' plantations are found in just two countries -- Argentina and the U.S.

``Although there have been marginal increases in the areas of transgenic crops grown in Europe, the long-term prospects for GM seeds look bleak,'' the FOE report says. ``Lack of markets, national bans and evidence of environmental damage ensure that one of the world's biggest markets will remain a disaster zone for the biotech industry.''

European Union regulators have approved a number of new bioengineered crops since the end of a 1999-2004 freeze on new approvals, imposed by a ``blocking minority'' of countries in the bloc. Still, popular opposition to the foods remains high and several countries, including Austria, refuse to allow approved crops to be planted, flouting a World Trade Organization ruling last year.

Companies including Monsanto Co., the world's biggest developer of gene-engineered foods, haven't delivered a promised ``second generation'' of products with more useful features, according to the report.

Rich Nations Benefit



``No GM crop on the market today offers benefits to the consumer in terms of quality or price, and to date these crops have done nothing to alleviate hunger or poverty in Africa or elsewhere'' Nnimmo Bassey, a Friends of the Earth analyst in Nigeria, said in an e-mailed statement. ``The great majority of GM crops cultivated today are used as high-priced animal feed to supply rich nations with meat.''


Read the Article.

Also see 10 Years of Continuing Rejection - 18th January 2007

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Lean Process Memory Jogger

I want to apply the Lean process to cleaning up my unit and moving June in. I have the Lean Memory Jogger written down at work but failed to find a simple reference on the web. I will write the information here for everyone and especially myself.

Lean + Memory Jogger - 5 S'


Optimum (workplace) organisation.











SortRemove the Unnecessary.
SimplifyArrange and Identify.
SweepA visual check.
StandardiseDevelop standard process.
SustainContinious follow through.


Lean + Memory Jogger - 8 Wastes


Optimum (workplace) organisation.

















DefectsErrors leading to rework.
OverproductionMore than is needed.
WaitingFor information, people or material.
Not utilising employeeKnowledge, skills or attributes.
TransportationMovement of material and information.
InventoryExcess material and information.
MotionUnnecessary movement.
Excess ProcessDoing more than is required.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Dung Power: A New Kind of Battery Farming

Note from the National Enquirer - I wanted this to go on our Climate Action Brisbane blog but that is the "old" blogger and no longer seems to be available (or at the moment atleast). I'll need to get the admin to convert that to the new blogger.




Article from whypandas.spaces.live.com blog.

Who’d have guessed it, the future of the planet may soon be assured by a giant pile of cow droppings. An English agricultural college is generating its own electricity by tapping into the vast amounts of methane produced by cattle dung. Students at the Walford and North Shropshire College collect the dried out faeces its herd of cows deposits each day then pump the liqufied poo into a digester which in turn powers a generator. They are now producing all the electricity they need to run a new, environmentally-friendly college building. "Everything that comes out of the back end of an animal goes in,” Adrian Joynt, farm manager of the College’s new £2.7m Harris Centre told the BBC this week. "We actually get enough energy to supply the farm's electricity for a year."

The idea is doubly efficient in environmental terms. The methane cattle produce is a major contributor to global warming. Dairy cows can belch 106 to 132 gallons of methane gas a day, 200 times more than a human. (It’s reckoned that the UK’s 2.2 million cattle account for around 7 per cent of our greenhouse gases although that’s nothing compared to New Zealand, whose 40 million sheep and 10 million cows produce 43 per cent of its emissions.) By processing it this way the amount of methane let loose into the atmosphere is drastically reduced, say Friends of the Earth. All this gives the term battery farming a whole new meaning. Presumably, it also means that at this particular building the s*** is actually powering the fan.

25-1 on Great Whites in Britain

Note from the National Enquirer - I wanted this to go on our Climate Action Brisbane blog but that is the "old" blogger and no longer seems to be available (or at the moment atleast). I'll need to get the admin to convert that to the new blogger.




December 27, 2006

Article from UK Sun newspaper.

BOOKIES are offering odds of just 25-1 on a Great White SHARK being caught off British shores next year.

Experts believe climate change may mean UK waters are soon feeding spots for the Jaws monsters.

Totesport’s Damian Walker said: “As the sea around the UK is getting warmer many of the Great White’s prey have been moving into UK waters.”

The bookie firm is offering a series of global warming wagers — with 4-1 odds that next year is the hottest on record. And it is 50-1 that the Thames Barrier will be breached in a decade. You can even back a month of next year to be hottest or wettest — with July 8-11 favourite to be the hottest.

But it is 7-4 there will be no White Christmas in London before 2011. Mr Walker said: “We hope these odds generate plenty of interest.”

The Tote will give half the bets’ profits to charity Friends of the Earth.

Looking at fresh ways to power the future

Note from the National Enquirer - I wanted this to go on our Climate Action Brisbane blog but that is the "old" blogger and no longer seems to be available (or at the moment atleast). I'll need to get the admin to convert that to the new blogger.




Dec 27 2006
By Rachel Grocott, Special Correspondent

Article from Birmingham Post (Business).

As the cost of fossil fuels continues to soar, stocks continue to deplete, and damage to the environment persists, the issue of developing a sustainable fuel resource remains at the top of the environmental agenda.

The combustion of fossil fuels is the biggest contributing factor to the growing threat of climate change and sustainable fuel is needed to alleviate the pressure.

Temperatures in central England have risen by one degree Celsius since 1960. Although it could be argued that climate change has been a natural and frequently occurring phenomenon over the history of Earth, scientists and politicians largely agree that releasing harmful 'greenhouse gases' traps heat within the atmosphere and therefore causes global warming.

Man-made greenhouse gases pose a greater threat to the environment due to the huge increase in their production since the Industrial Revolution.

The gases considered most dangerous, and those that could be reduced by changing the ways in which people source their energy, are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide which have increased respectively by 31 per cent, 150 per cent and 16 per cent since mid-18th century.


Media & Marketing | E-Business | John Bright | Nevill Boyd Maunsell
Manufacturing | Legal & Finance | On the move | Enterprise


Looking at fresh ways to power the future

Dec 27 2006

By Rachel Grocott, Special Correspondent


As the cost of fossil fuels continues to soar, stocks continue to deplete, and damage to the environment persists, the issue of developing a sustainable fuel resource remains at the top of the environmental agenda.

The combustion of fossil fuels is the biggest contributing factor to the growing threat of climate change and sustainable fuel is needed to alleviate the pressure.

Temperatures in central England have risen by one degree Celsius since 1960. Although it could be argued that climate change has been a natural and frequently occurring phenomenon over the history of Earth, scientists and politicians largely agree that releasing harmful 'greenhouse gases' traps heat within the atmosphere and therefore causes global warming.

Man-made greenhouse gases pose a greater threat to the environment due to the huge increase in their production since the Industrial Revolution.

The gases considered most dangerous, and those that could be reduced by changing the ways in which people source their energy, are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide which have increased respectively by 31 per cent, 150 per cent and 16 per cent since mid-18th century.


Story continues Continue story
ADVERTISEMENT

Carbon dioxide is the result of burning fossil fuels to produce electricity and during fuel consumption for transport.

International targets to reduce levels of carbon dioxide by a third by 2020 and half by 2050 have been set. However there are parties that want to see changes take place more rapidly.

A recent plea from Friends of the Earth, backed by 34 of the Midlands' MPs from all political parties, for the Government to take action within four years to reverse global warming demonstrates the urgency of looking at alternate energy options.

The necessity to develop alternate fuel is becoming widely accepted and implemented into international, European and national law and is in the long term interests of energy companies who will stand to benefit by investing in sustainable energy forms.

In a survey, nearly 30 per cent of the world's top companies did not comment on the impact of climate change-related issues on their business.

This ignorance is likely to become unacceptable given that that 95 per cent of voters in a recent poll agreed that the Government needs to legislate to force organisations to reduce their carbon footprint.

The British economy is dependent on fossil fuels. For those who dismiss the environmental factors as the need to change energy sources, the fact that these are non-renewable resources that will exhaust one day cannot be over-looked for long.

By 2050 a world is envisaged where people fill up their cars with electricity, biofuels or hydrogen from multi-fuel stations and where hydrogen fuel cells are routinely used to provide heat and power in homes.

Vehicle emissions are second only in emitting harmful carbon dioxide output to the energy industry itself, accounting for 25 per cent of emissions.

With some alternative fuels becoming cheaper than petrol and diesel, and with tax incentives to use these alternatives, converting to environmentally sustainable fuels really can be a viable undertaking.

Other popular sustainable alternatives to petrol include:


  • Ethanol, methanol and butanol, which are all sourced from fermented plant matter.
  • Liquid Petroleum Gas (or LPG) is a naturally derived heavy gas produced from petroleum during processing and stored as a liquid.
  • Compressed Natural Gas (or CNG) is similar to LPG n Biofuel or biodiesel is made from oil extracts sourced directly from vegetables and plants, or from recycled household vegetable oil.


The electricity consumption in the average EU household has been increasing at about two per year for the past few years.

Although significant improvements in energy efficiency have been achieved in home appliances and lighting 90 per cent rely on fossil fuels for their power.

Solar energy is an example of a sustainable fuel that could be put to use in the UK.

A number of companies and new developments are converting to solar power. Solar energy is immediately replaceable, with no direct damage to the environment as it utilises rather than depletes the sun's energy.

Solar power is progressing rapidly.

Birmingham is already showing efforts to adapt to sustainable fuel.

In 2005 Birmingham City Council received an award from the Ashden Trust for installing solar panels at the Alexander Stadium. At the time, it was the largest array of solar panels in Britain.

A partnership between the city, Worcester-based npower and Solarcentury enabled the energy saving system to be implemented. Solar energy provides electricity for the stadium and sports centre as well as selling excess to the national grid.

Matt Brown, deputy facility manager at the Alexander Stadium, said: "The slanted roof captures low angle sunlight, particularly valuable during winter months.

"The facility produces enough electricity to power 26 three bedroom homes every year. The emission savings of this revolutionary power supply equate to preventing 79,883kg of carbon dioxide to date entering our atmosphere. It would take 60 trees 100 years to absorb this much carbon. "

The UK's geographical position makes it one of the best locations for utilising renewable energy. The first wind farm was established in November 1991.

By March 2004 there were 1,043 wind turbines in operation at 84 sites around the UK, providing 649.4 MW or 0.3-0.4 per cent of the UK's electricity supply.

There are also two offshore wind farms at Blyth Offshore (4MW) and North Hoyle (60 MW). A massive one is also planned for the Thames Estuary.

They were very expensive when they were first introduced but initial costs have fallen considerably, making it a more affordable option.

The British Wind Energy Association points out that there is now primary legislation to ensure that ten per cent of our renewable energy - three per cent of our electricity - will come from wind power by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2015.

Wind has the potential to supply a third of the world's electricity by 2050, according to a report by umbrella group the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace International.

The report concludes that the development of wind power is key in the fight against dangerous climate change.

It offers a blueprint for wind to supply 16.5 per cent of global electricity by 2020 - saving 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions - and 34 per cent by 2050.

Sven Teske, energy expert at Greenpeace International said: "The required carbon dioxide reduction can only be achieved if wind power plays a major role in the power sector."

Attention is also turning back to coal because of its widespread availability and stable price. But the industry has had to clean up its act in recent years.

Politicians and industry experts hope the development of 'clean coal technology' will make the fuel environmentally acceptable.

New technologies are under development towards a zero emissions future.

The technological progression within the coal industry to ensure the environmental challenge is met works around three core elements:


  • Eliminating emissions of pollutants such as particulates, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen
  • Increasing thermal efficiency to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions
  • Eliminating carbon dioxide emissions


Coal also has the potential to produce an essential source of hydrogen for completely clean future energy systems including transport.

Currently accounting for just 0.43 per cent of the UK's energy, biomass is seen as one route to meeting targets for the reductions of carbon dioxide emissions and increased use of renewable energy.

Biomass is any plant material which can be used as a fuel, such as energy crops, wood, agricultural waste and vegetable oils. It can be burned directly to generate power, or treated to create gas or oils to be used as fuel.

An environmental project in Stafford, has produced the first crop of miscanthus - a perennial grass - harvested to provide fuel for the UK's first bio-energy plant.

Bob Talbott, founder and company chairman, said: "We have been heavily involved with the design of a two and a half megawatt generator which will utilise the miscanthus crops and eventually provide enough electricity to power around two thousand local homes."

The use of miscanthus will save carbon dioxide emissions and the plant's residue, in the form of ash, will be used as fertiliser by farms to promote miscanthus growth.

A number of businesses have already adopted a sustainable energy 'green' workplace including Innocent, a company derived on a solely 'green' basis.

It was founded in 1998 with a mission to provide healthy drinks in a sustainable fashion and the use of recycled plastic in bottles - having electricity supplied by sustainable power is helping them to achieve this goal.

Richard Reed, co-founder, said: "We've always run Innocent on green electricity, it's important to us to make Innocent drinks a truly sustainable company. We also really like the way that Good Energy works. They're independent and ethical and the way they treat their customers, suppliers and environment is really important to them."

Monday, December 18, 2006

Mac OS X Leopard vs. Windows Vista

As a keen Mac person (and just-as-much an anti-Microsoft person), was delighted to come across this ezine site (see http://roughlydrafted.com/ RD/RDM/ 5C98C705-ACCC-45AF-AA07-BB1E3D216387.html). The discussion are logical and well-argued in their anti-Microsoft positioning and any comments against what the author has said are followed up in an equally logical and well-argued response.

I will quote a portion from the 5th part in the series:




The Difference of the Challenges Faced


Apple's existing Mac OS X Tiger has been in ongoing use by millions of grandmas, creative professionals, school kids, and molecular biologists for nearly two years.

Leopard doesn't face a huge list of security flaws, legacy baggage, and core architectural problems that desperately need to be fixed; its just icing on a cake that already tastes pretty good.

Vista, on the other hand, faces significant challenges. Microsoft's existing Windows XP is the root of the most expensive destruction caused by any operating system ever.

Severely FUBAR


Windows deficiencies have spawned a third party market for antivirus and security tools that drains away many billions of dollars of direct repair costs, and untold billions of lost productivity every year.

Vista is challenged with solving poor engineering decisions made in past decades: some were the product of earlier technology limitations, but others were the result of sloppy and irresponsible development, a fact that even Microsoft publicly recognizes.

In addition to the problems Microsoft has created, the company also struggles with problems caused by bad third party development for which the company has no control. Developers who skirted Microsoft's public APIs and refuse to let go of deprecated legacy have forced the company to support a mess of old technology that impedes progress and folds excessive complexity into Microsoft's code base.

Out of Control


If Microsoft were entirely in control of its own destiny, it could quickly banish support for legacy hardware and decisively move developers into the future by laying out clean new APIs and simply killing off the outdated, arcane ways of doing things that drag down Windows development like millions of tiny anchors tearing up the ocean floor as the ship from Redmond struggles to push forward.

As a smaller, nimbler company that isn’t hamstrung by foot dragging hardware partners, Apple can plot its own future, and has solved its legacy issues by enforcing the meaning of deprecated.

Apple isn't escaping a plague of viruses and spyware because of its smaller installed base, but rather because of the simpler, cleaner design of its software, a luxury afforded by the company's power to move decisively and cast off the unnecessary baggage and boat anchors of past legacy.

This gives Apple another advantage with Leopard over Vista: Leopard can quickly adopt and exploit new features though its tight integration with a known, limited set of hardware precisely because it only runs on Apple's Macs.

Microsoft's Vista not only has to support an incredible variety of existing hardware, but is also obligated to support a lot of poorly written software as well.

This has worked in Microsoft's favor in the past, as its legacy support served to complicate rivals’ efforts to compete against Windows in the PC operating system market. Against Apple however, it puts Microsoft at a significant disadvantage, particularly in the consumer markets Apple is targeting.

Legacy development issues also play into the technology that shapes the elegance Leopard and Vista can offer.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Opposed to nuclear power industry in Australia

To: umpner@pmc.gov.au

To whom it may concern,

I oppose nuclear power in Australia, especially when we have so many better, safer, cheaper, more sustainable methods of generating power for Australians.

Nuclear power stations take a tremendous amount of time and money to build. They consume enormous amounts of water. They elevate the risk of nuclear contamination and they heighten the risk of terrorism using nuclear contaminents (why would the Australian government be so behind the nuclear industry given this when they joined in a war against terrorism?). We have no idea of the cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants nor the effort involved. The uranium supplies in the world will not support a world-wide nuclear power industry for very long. And lastly, the money that will go into this could build lots of alternative energy processing plants, employ a lot of people, develop industries Australia could export and leave surplus money to improve the public transport and increase energy efficiency in our society.

The British Sustainable Development Commission rejected Nuclear as a solution to climate change (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html) back in March 2006 and the story was featured in New Scientist. Why would Australia run it's own surveys and then push forward with a nuclear power industry?

The nuclear choice does not make sense.

Yours sincerely,

Brooke



Other links


For people who want to make a more extensive submission:



Don't forgot that most of my posts are being written at http://climateactionbrisbane.blogspot.com/ now.



Submissions from other people


From: Hugh Spencer (Dr. Hugh Spencer Director of Research - Cape Tribulation Tropical Research Station)

Response to the:

Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER) Taskforce,

Draft Report


To whom it may concern,

Advocating the use of nuclear energy for powering Australia, is a sublimelyfoolish act.

The terms of reference for the Uranium Mining, Processing and NuclearEnergy Review (UMPNER) Taskforce, specifically exclude considerations ofother issues such as environmental impacts, energy conservation, long termdecommissioning and treat the adoption of the nuclear fuel cycle inAustralia as a fait accomplit.

What we are seeing is a 'Business as Usual' scenario - which completelyignores the fact that it is mankind's galloping consumption of energy(coupled with unfettered population growth) that is causing the rapidlyescalating climatic effects that we call 'Global Warming'.

The report also flies in the face of many of the recommendations of the2004 White paper 'Securing Australia's Energy Future'.

especially.... "ensure Australia uses energy wisely".

Our first and primary act, is to drastically throttle down national energyuse. This requires concerted and properly informed government action. ThereWILL be impact on the economy (the God-head of our consumer culture), butif we don't act sensibly - the changes wrought by climate change willensure that there won't be much of an economy in the future that we wouldrecognise.

As Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) says - "Tackling Climate Change is themoral equivalent to War". - and as such, the Government of the day musttake leadership.


  1. The Howard government must re-visit and widen the very narrow set ofreferences given to this commission, references which do not allow theconsideration of possibly or even probably much better, cheaper, safer,more sustainable and more effective energy sources like wind, solar,biomass, wave and geothermal (the latter two can reliably provide baseloads). These options should be considered in this or an equal commissionand their costs and development potentials should be compared before anycommitment to nuclear energy is made.

  2. There is no estimation of the costs of decommissioning nuclear plantsand the total costs (including inflation) for the long term safe storageand safeguarding of nuclear waste for the entire time that it radiatesdangerous levels of radioactivity and I ask this commission to includethose costs into the estimated consumer costs of nuclear power. Thesecosts can be extremely high and can negate financial benefits,

  3. There is no mechanism discussed whereby covering the costs ofdecommissioning or effects of accidents CAN BE GUARANTEED into the future.With the escalating costs of fossill fuels (and the enormous energy costsinvolved in de- commissioning) there is NO guarantee, that at the end of a25 year service life, that resources WOULD be available at all!

  4. I ask that this commission provide an estimate of known uranium reserves(in Australia and worldwide), their relative richness and how long theycould supply the world at present technology and usage and at the expectedworldwide increased usage (with and without an Australian nuclear industryas envisioned by the draft report).

  5. This commission must consider the worldwide political implicationsof going nuclear at a time when we want Iran and South Korea to stop theirnuclear programs and when we would not want most other countries to gonuclear.

  6. The commission must consider that after over 60 years of nuclear industrythere does not appear to be a single safe long term deposit for highlyradioactive waste anywhere in the world and no widely accepted evidencethat there will ever be one. In no case should we start using nuclearenergy before safe long term storage of waste can be assured for thehundreds or thousands of years they will be radioactive for.


Hugh Spencer (PHD)


Terms of Reference



The Terms of Reference were announced by the Prime Minister on 6 June 2006.

The review will consider the following matters:

Economic issues



  1. The capacity for Australia to increase uranium mining and exports inresponse to growing global demand.

  2. The potential for establishing other steps in the nuclear fuel cycle inAustralia, such as fuel enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing, alongwith the costs and benefits associated with each step.

  3. The extent and circumstances in which nuclear energy could in thelonger term be economically competitive in Australia with other existingelectricity generation technologies, including any implications this wouldhave for the national electricity market.

  4. The current state of nuclear energy research and development inAustralia and the capacity for Australia to make a significantly greatercontribution to international nuclear science.


Environment issues


  1. The extent to which nuclear energy will make a contribution to thereduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.

  2. The extent to which nuclear energy could contribute to the mix ofemerging energy technologies in Australia.


Health, safety and proliferation issues


  1. The potential of 'next generation' nuclear energy technologies to meetsafety, waste and proliferation concerns.

  2. The waste processing and storage issues associated with nuclear energyand current world's best practice.

  3. The security implications relating to nuclear energy.

  4. The health and safety implications relating to nuclear energy.





John Hill and Jo Wynter

10th December, 2006.

To whom it may concern:

We are writing to express our sincere and extreme concern about the precipitous rush to expand uranium mining and perhaps build nuclear reactors in Australia.

Firstly, we would like to protest at the brief amount of time allowed for submissions to be made on the Report.

Timing the submissions to be due by December 12th, during the lead-up to Christmas, seems guaranteed to limit proper discussion and consideration of these very important issues - we can only hope that this was not deliberate.

We strongly request that more time be allowed for submissions and that proper public debates of the Report's findings be conducted about the process and the many points it raises.

If an extension is not given and more public participation encouraged, we believe the whole process will be brought into disrepute.

Not having had time to study your Draft Report properly to make a detailed and thorough response, we have limited ourselves to raising a some issues we feel have not been considered carefully enough in the Report.

A number of statements in the Report are, at best, very misleading. On several key points it is difficult to believe such statements by "experts" could have been made in good faith. For example, the Report (on p. 7) says:

"Similarly, other environmental impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle including air pollution emissions, land use and water use are either comparable to or significantly lower than conventional fossil fuels and renewables."

This is simply not true!


  • Air pollution emissions: It is true that (barring accidents) nuclear plants normally produce far less greenhouse gases and other air pollutants than fossil fuel plants. But it is not true to claim they produce less than "renewables."

    There is significant production of air pollution and greenhouse gases in the construction of nuclear stations - more, according to most studies than is produced in during the production and construction of wind, wave and the various solar systems including photovoltaics. Additionally, during the production of electricity renewables produce significantly less of these contaminants than nuclear plants because they are not reliant on the on-going mining and refining of uranium. Also, of course, with "renewables," there is zero possibility of a repeat of the massive radioactive contamination of the atmosphere that occurred after the Chernobyl event which spread radioactive iodine and other radioactive elements right across the northern hemisphere and contaminated millions of people (not to mention animals and plants). There can be no guarantee that such accidents will not happen again, or that they may be even worse and more devastating next time.

  • Land use. Land that has been used for a nuclear power plant can hardly be used for any other purpose - not only for the lifespan of the power plant but long into the future (even after it is very expensively "decommissioned") due to radioactive contamination and the massive concrete "containment structures" built on the land.

    Sooner or later almost all, if not all, uranium mines and nuclear power plants develop radioactive leaks - some more serious than others. These have cumulative effects - some of which will not become troublesome (or even noticed) for years. However, this continual contamination of waterways and water tables and the oceans will leave a poisonous, and largely intractable legacy for our descendants.

    Decommissioning and cleanup programs overseas have commonly gone way over budget, often running into tens of billions of dollars (a cost that is not usually included in the cost of producing the electricity by the nuclear industry), and are often not very successful in really fixing the damage, or making the site safe for future generations.

    Nuclear plants destroy forever (in human terms) the land they are placed on. This land is usually prime land beside rivers or the sea as they need so much water for cooling (and we have very few seaside or riverbank sites left in Australia that are suitable and available).

    Nuclear power stations put at risk everything downstream of them if there are any accidents, attacks, floods, earthquakes or other disasters - and there are, sooner or later, sure to be such events involving some nuclear plants. Even one such event could kill huge numbers of people and permanently" contaminate much-needed waterways and land. Moreover, almost all nuclear plants and uranium mines experience some toxic and/or radioactive leaks which end up in our very precious and rapidly diminishing water tables. Additionally, the plants heat the water in the rivers which supply them which has led to great biological disturbances downstream in many places.

    In complete contrast, the land used for solar systems, biomass, geothermal, or wind generation would be almost immediately and completely useable for other purposes after such a "renewable" power plant was decommissioned.

    Moreover, during the life of the power plant, much of the land could be used for agriculture and so on. Crops can be grown and cattle grazed under windmills. Solar panels can be placed on top of buildings or to create shade for crops. An earthquake or terrorist attack or flood might well damage the power plant itself, but would be most unlikely to cause any significant "collateral damage."

  • Water use. It is well known that most nuclear power plants use large amounts of water - in fact more than any other form of power generation. Similarly-sized coal-fired plants, which are notorious consumers of water, use significantly less water than nuclear plants (typically about 20% less). "Dry cooling" (in which steam from the turbines is and condensed by forcing large volumes of air through finned pipes) is possible but impracticable. Such systems are very expensive to construct due to the large system of pipes and fans, which, in turn, reduce the efficiency of the power turbines due to back pressure. Australia typically has relatively high ambient air temperatures, so these systems would be even more inefficient than in places with cooler climates.

    Water cooling of nuclear (or coal-fired) power stations can be of three types:

    1. Once-through fresh water cooling. This requires larger sustainable river flows than are available in Australia.

    2. Once-through seawater cooling. Available seaside sites close to major transmission grids are very limited, and may become threatened by the rising seawater levels and increased storm activity over the lifespan of the power station due to predicted climate changes.

    3. Evaporative cooling is probably the best possible option for Australia but it does consume or "waste" huge amounts of precious fresh water through evaporation, even more than coal-fired plants, and astronomically more than sustainables.

      Queensland's Premier, Peter Beattie, recently said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland Government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.

      Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station that produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year would use around 19,500 megalitres of water to condense and recycle steam. He said a nuclear power station producing the same output would need about 25,000 megalitres (i.e. 25 billion litres of water). The Premier added: "It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies." If seawater is used instead of fresh water for cooling there would be serious biological impacts on the ocean due to thermal discharge. Renewable energy sources use relatively insignificant amounts of water. According to the California Energy Commission (cited in Paul Gipe's Wind Energy Comes of Age, John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 427, conventional power plants consume amounts of water (through evaporative loss, not including water that is recaptured and treated for further use) that are hundreds of times greater than that needed for renewable sources. They estimate that wind turbine plants would consume less than 1/600th as much water per unit of electricity produced as does nuclear, and approximately 1/500th as much as coal.

      It is true small amounts of water are used to clean wind turbine rotor blades in climates where rainfall does not keep the blades clean. The purpose of blade cleaning is to eliminate dust and insect build-up, which can degrade performance. Similarly, small amounts of water are used to clean photovoltaic panels and other types of solar systems. And, except for water used in the production of the plants; that is all that is needed.



Safety (or the lack of it)


The Report goes to great lengths to suggest that nuclear power is safe.

Table 6.2 "Selected nuclear facility accidents, 1966-1999", on p. 70, lists only 31 deaths from Chernobyl. If the nuclear industry keeps scrupulous records of all accidents, as the Draft Report claims, why we are provided with a table that is almost 8 years' old? This figure of 31 deaths is clearly misleading as in the Report further on inn Box 6.2, page 69, we find in small print an estimate that:

"Approximately 4000 people in the areas with the highest radiation levels [caused by Chernobyl] may eventually die from cancer caused by radiation exposure. Of the 6.8 million individuals living further from the explosion, who received a much lower dose, another 5000 may die prematurely as a result of that dose."

Thus the nuclear industry itself expects approximately 9000 deaths will result from the Chernobyl disaster - 3 times as many people as died in the "9/11" terrorist attack on New York - and this figure may well be underestimated. Moreover, these figures refer only to deaths - there is no consideration given to related illnesses or suffering! The Report does not estimate the amount of still-births, deformed children and inter-generational damage and suffering caused by the Chernobyl accident. Box 6.1 on p. 65, gives some technical data on genetic damage from radiation - but no estimates of how widespread this is likely to be - or how many people will suffer because of radiation effects - not all of which are lethal.

Deceptive statements


The Report is filled with numerous half-truths and deceptive wording. Examples include:


  • Page 65, Section 6.1. The opening passage states:

    "All industrial activities, including mining and energy production, involve risks to human health and safety. No means of generating electricity is risk free."

    Although this is literally true, the implication is clearly that nuclear power is not unusual in the risks that it poses. One could hardly argue that nuclear power is safer than wind or solar, tidal, wave, biomass or geothermal power. In fact, the risk of catastrophic disasters will always be present with nuclear power and its by-products.

  • "Table 6.3 Examples of everyday risks in Australia," on p. 72, is particularly misleading because it attempts to compare various risk factors for threats such as cigarette smoking, drowning, motoring, fire, lightening strikes, shark attacks, etc., purportedly showing that the risk of death from the increase in average background radiation is less than everything on the list except death from snake bite or shark attack. Firstly, the increase in background radiation is only one of many risks posed by nuclear power and uranium mining. Moreover, a close read of the notes in fine print under the box reveal the deceptive nature of these figures:

  • The box only gives the increase in background radiation averaged over the whole world. There is no recognition that background radiation is likely to be much higher in regions close to uranium mines, nuclear power plants or nuclear dumps. Additionally, it does not indicate which year the estimates are for, or whether levels are increasing or, if so, by how much.

  • There is no mention that the risk will increase dramatically in Australia if we build a series of nuclear power stations and greatly expand uranium mining and processing, transport and radioactive waste disposal.

  • There is no mention of the risks of accidents, or those posed by terrorists or natural disasters.

    Export of uranium and nuclear proliferation



    Selling uranium for "peaceful purposes" is a goal that is impossible to enforce. For example, in spite of many agreements and "guarantees" that India would only use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, in 1974 they used plutonium from a Canadian-designed 40MW "research" reactor using Canadian uranium to make their first atomic bombs.

    In the cases of countries like India, North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan, having "civilian" nuclear power plants has led to the development of nuclear weapons. What country can guarantee a stable, sensible government in 10 or 20 years time? Even if it were possible to ensure that Australian uranium was only used for "peaceful purposes", this would only free up other stocks of uranium to be used for military purposes. India, for instance, has some limited uranium reserves of its own - so, if it can import enough uranium from other countries such as Australia to run its civilian nuclear reactors it could then, if it wished, divert all of its own reserves to the military.

    International "guarantees" and agreements are hardly worth the paper they are written on. Adequate safeguards are impossible to enforce. We are hypocritical if we do not admit that Australian uranium exports encourage nuclear proliferation.

    Much of Australia's uranium exports already go to countries that are politically and/or geologically unstable, and there are moves to expand that list.

    Some other factors we feel were not dealt with adequately in the Draft Report

  • Australia urgently needs a complete change in our thinking and expectations regarding energy production and use.

    We need to be cutting consumption and not planning for constant increases in the use of electricity. There are many ways to do this with present technology and resources and there will, undoubtedly, be more in the future. For example, one very simple step that could be implemented immediately is to get rid of incandescent globes altogether and replace them with the new fluorescent ones which use approximately 75% less electricity. This would also reduce the power needed for air-conditioning. One report we saw claimed that if all the incandescent globes in the U.S. were changed to fluorescents they wouldn't need a new power station until 2025. That's a pretty good start

  • Nuclear power is excessively expensive, slow to install and can only be viable with large government subsidies which can take several forms (aside from the usual direct financial support, land grants, and tax breaks) such as: not including the clean-up costs after decommissioning, providing alternative power sources in case of shutdown of the nuclear plants (a not uncommon occurrence), allowing companies to put the disposal of wastes on hold indefinitely ("more research needs to be done") - often in very dicey "temporary" containers such as 44 gallon drums, guaranteeing sales of so much electricity per year, and - very commonly - because "peaceful" nuclear reactors give governments the ability to develop nuclear weapons in a hurry if they want to at a future date ("leaving the options open") and thus they are keen to have "peaceful" nuclear facilities.

  • Many reactors have gone way over budget for construction and, later, decommissioning, costs have done the same. Unfortunately, once a major project like the construction of a nuclear plant is begun, it is impossible to cancel it without major financial losses.

  • Many nuclear plants around the world have had to be shut for prolonged periods due to safety concerns - thus threatening continuity of electricity supply to large populations. This common occurrence makes it imperative for planners to design more and larger power stations than otherwise necessary, to assure a constant supply of electricity in case of the shutdown of one or more of these power stations.

  • Nuclear power plants are not good at being able to cope with rapid spikes and lows in demand and so, to be on the safe side, are usually kept up and running at more than needed capacity. Once begun, the nuclear energy industry has a stranglehold on power generation and this will limit new advances and experiments.

    Peak power demand is usually during weekdays during summer, with a big drop-off at night and on weekends. This makes a powerful case for a significant component of solar-generated power. Hydroelectric, geothermal and gas-fired plants are much more responsive to variabilities of power demands than nuclear.

  • New and much more efficient ways of storing both electricity and/or heat (that can be used for producing electricity later) are being developed at the moment which will reduce the need for "demand-time" generation of electricity.

    New storage methods promise continuous baseload power will be available from solar, wind and wave and tidal systems in the near future.

    The new solar cells recently developed at ANU look certain to be able to reduce the cost of production (and the use of energy in producing them) by about 50%. They are past the developmental stage and are just waiting for someone to fund full-scale production facilities. These funds will be very hard to find if we throw most of our resources into the nuclear basket.

    A report was just released by Daily Tech in Illinois yesterday (9th December, 2006) stating that:

    "The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has announced that with the help of government funding, Boeing-Spectrolab has demonstrated a concentrator solar cell with a record-breaking 40.7% efficiency rating. .. . With this new technology, the DOE is projecting that installation costs for these types of solar cells would drop to $3 per watt with electricity costing 8 to 10 cents per kWh. The long-term goal is to have solar energy technology installed in as many as two million American homes providing power at 5 to 10 cents per kWh by the year 2015." Downloaded from: (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5261)

    PC Authority Magazine added on 8th December that:

    "A 33-kilowatt test system is already up and running in the Australian desert and more large-scale trials are planned soon. The cells will also be used on the next generation of satellites."


Conclusion


The Draft Report appears to be heavily biased towards the promotion of uranium mining and nuclear power generation in Australia. Data in it has been frequently employed in a distorted and mendacious way. As such, it cannot be taken seriously and is likely to bring ridicule and embarrassment to both the Australian Government and the nuclear industry as its gross bias and flaws become clear to the public and the scientific community at large. We recommend that this Draft Report be withdrawn immediately in its entirety and a new Report commissioned with an evenly balanced panel of experts representing a wide range of views - not just those of the nuclear industry and its supporters.


John Hill and Jo Wynter