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

Saturday, November 25, 2006

C'mon people, work it out

The despair grows.

Fruit, vege and grocery shopping today almost made me sick. I was the only person to be using a "Green" bag. I had one of them (I perhaps should have had two due to the amount of f and v I bought) and everyone else (10 groups) had atleast 10 plastic bags each. They casually watched them being 1/4 filled by the check out staff who didn't want to offend their customers by mixing items that might be odd, and they casually placed them into their trolly. A couple groups

It's 2 thousand and fucking 06 people. Plastic bags are a thing of the 80's. Grow the fuck up, work it the fuck out. Sorry for using the "f" word so much but it scares the fuck out of me that if people can't make the simple change to NOT using plastic bags then what hope do we have. A couple years ago there were maybe twice as many people using Green bags, but now that is not the case. I no longer think it is trendy. We are living in the times of the 30 second concentration span.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Liberal and Labor set to give each other preferences

Leanne Daharja Veitch of Climate Change Action writes:

30 October 2006

Hi all,

Due to the incredibly increasing popularity of the Victorian Greens, it is looking like the Victorian Liberal and Labor parties are going to give each other their preference votes, in an attempt to crush the Greens, who stand a very real chance of winning several major seats and a balance of power.

What this means is that instead of preferences flowing to smaller parties (as per normal), preferences for the two major parties will flow to each other, thereby eliminating any competition from other parties altogether.

So if you vote Labor (Bracks) and you are in a Liberal area, your vote could end up going to the Liberal party (Ballieu). If you vote Liberal and are in a Labor area, your vote could flow to Labor.

This sort of thing is done when a third party grows strong in a two party system. The two major parties collude to crush the third option, and then it's back to 'business as usual'. It keeps the status quo, which is exactly how the major parties like it.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?


Be careful how you vote. Preferences make a *real* difference - this was seen in the last Victorian election when Labor preferences went to Family First, and as a result a large number of long-time Labor members resigned their membership in disgust at the deal that was done without their knowledge. Family First ended up with a seat despite very small electoral support - all on Labor preferences.

If you really care about the environment, vote Green. It's that simple. The only chance the Greens have is people voting for them *directly*.

Preferences have not yet been confirmed, and will not be confirmed until the 11th of November, but this is the talk in parliament. Last state election there was a swing towards the Greens of +8%, and this swing is set to increase substantially, according to the latest polls.

Vote Green, and make a real difference to Victorian politics.

Cheers,

Leanne Veitch

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Nuclear power 'a threat to water supply'

From SMH

October 29, 2006 - 12:29PM

Australia's crippling drought will worsen if the Howard government succeeds in its push for nuclear power, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.

Addressing the New Zealand Labour Party conference in Rotorua, Mr Beattie 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.

"At a time when our farming communities are hurting badly, it is a folly for (Prime Minister John) Howard to be entertaining the thought of nuclear power stations in Queensland or anywhere else," he said.

"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."

Mr Howard established a review, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, in June as part of his push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix.

Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year and used 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.

"That is the equivalent of at least an additional 5,000 Olympic-size swimming pools a year," Mr Beattie said.

"It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies."

He said nuclear power stations needed a guaranteed water supply and a strong connection to an electricity grid, implying a nuclear power plant would need to be close to the eastern seaboard.

"Where is Mr Howard planning to put it? Is it Townsville or Mackay or perhaps further down along the coastline on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast?

"Even then a guaranteed water supply to meet minimum safety concerns would be a tall order.

"A guarantee like that is tough at the best of times, let alone in the middle of the worst drought on record."

Mr Beattie is on a three-day trip to New Zealand to boost trade and economic ties.

© 2006 AAP

Monday, October 09, 2006

Value System

This is a post I'd like to write (and will some time).


Why does man kind value capital over everything else - other people, the environment, morals,... and so on. What is it in capitalism that has made us so selfish that we will plod along stuupidly wanting to continue cutting down our every dwindling forests, continue to pollute the atmosphere, ignore a fellow human in the street so desparate for food and start wars? Is it how we've always been and always will be, or is it something that has progressively got worse?

Is anything else in our history so different from today to suggest that we have changed signicantly? If I can answer this question then I have some proof that we have changed.

The conclusion to this post will be that in order for humans to survive we must change our value system from a capitalist based ownership one to something that is more inclusive of the common good and common goals.

To be finished...

Labor Councillors fight for better Brisbane Public Transport

I received a letter the other day from Councillor Helen Abrahams as a follow up to the public transport survey I submitted. I always thought that the Labor side of the council had somehow muted themselves over Brisbane public transport, though after David Hincliffe sent out the survey, and now that we get a follow up from Helen (Councillor for Dutton Park, Chair Environment and Sustainability Committee), it looks like they've finally found the power of their 17 Labor councillors to combat the scurge of the 8 economic rationalist conservatives (the Liberals). It is good to see. The environment movement is gaining strength. Labor certainly is far from perfect but atleast they don't value money over life itself as the Libs seem to.

Helen's letter follows.


Thank you for returning the recent public transport survey, and indicating your support for Council to be focusing more on public transport.

At the Council meeting on 12th September, Councillors supported a move by the Deputy Mayor to invest an additional $12m to purchase 19 additional new compressed natural gas buses and fund additional services. But as you know, we need to do a lot more to make public tranport a viable alternative in Brisbane. [Only 7% of journey's made in Brisbane are by public transport]

Brisbane is at a crossroads, with more than $6 billion worth of tunnels, roads and Bridges either underway or under consideration. At the same time, Council's funding on public transport is just $48.5M per annum. Lord Mayor Campbell Newman now wants to duplicate the William Jolly Bridge, with a toll bridge linking Hale Street to South Brisbane.

Brisbane must decide, do we want to spend another $200M on a toll bridge or do we want to invest in a world class public transport network?

You may have seen in the media that there is widespread opposition to this plan from residents of South Brisbane and surrounding suburbs, and from those who believe Council is putting too many resources into big road projects at the expense of public transport.

Many residents of my ward are questioning the wisdom of investing more than $200M in a toll bridge for mainly local traffic, when money could instead be invested in bus services to address congestion across the city.

Please find attached a form letter from one of the groups opposing the Hale Stret Toll Bridge project, which can be used as a submission on the Draft Impact Assessment Statment (IAS).

If you feel the same way as many members of my local community, may I suggest you sign it and return it in the envelope provided by 13 October 2006.

All the Councillors of Brisbane City Council will then take your comments into account when deciding how to proceed with the Hale Street Toll Bridge proposal.

Thanks again for your support for public transport.

Regards

Helen Abrahams


I had already submitted my opinions to the IAS and think it is fantastic that the Council had sent this letter and provided a stamped envelope to send the submission in.

The form letter is very much like that referenced in my submission (and included as part of) so I won't include that here.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Boycott ExxonMobil, Mobil and Esso

ExxonMobil is the type of insidious company that should be cast into the pits of hell long before they ever die. They fund global warming sceptics to try and cause public confusion over global warming / climate change. No wonder dill-brain Bush doesn't know what policies to set.

In this story, the Royal Society, of which Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Joseph Banks and Lord Kelvin were Presidents of, has had to ask a company to cease and decist its competitive actions for the first time in its 350 year history.

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

Boycott ExxonMobil, Esso, Mobile products and never use them again. Through the power of the people we can reclaim our lives and the planet we love and enjoy.

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Hale Street Link (Brisbane Transport)

Part of my purpose in life is to support the change in society which will allow us to have a safe, peacefull and prosperous future. My immediate concern is climate change and the human causes of that. Despite all the evidence as to our impact on the life on this planet, the people on this planet power on with business as usual. This post addresses the concern that we blindly continue to build roads and encourage the increase in private transport, where we know that the world cannot currently sustain the amount of greenhouse gases being released and that we must achieve a 60% reduction in greenhoue gases by 2050. Specifically it is a submission during the Impact Assessment Statement public consultation period on the Hale Street Link proposal. See Hale Street Link September 2006 newsletter for information, and the Community flyer with arguments for and against the development.

Following is my submission based on the template provided by Communities against the Hale Street Link. I encourage everyone to put in their submission against this development.




IAS Submission
Hale Street Link Project
GHD Pty Ltd
GPO Box 668
BRISBANE Q 4001


Hale Street Link Project IAS Submission

Dear Sir/Madam.

I oppose the HSL project, on the following grounds.


  • We must accept Climate Change and adapt. If this city, country and world wishes to remain prosperous then we must reduce our greenhouse gases output by 60% by 2050 (The Australian Sept 30, 2006). Creating the infrastructure that is the Hale Street Link (and the TransApex project in general (also see the Wikipedia article)) will only encourage more private transport (this is supported by the Brisbane City Council’s Hale Street Link public information posted to residents). Residents should be encouraged to use public transport - the Brisbane City Council (BCC) and State Government should put funds into improving and increasing the public transport in Brisbane and South East Queensland.

  • This project would solve no real problems. It’s not needed or wanted by local residents and would do nothing to solve Brisbane’s traffic congestion problems. Instead it would shift existing traffic congestion south of the river and actually worsen congestion city wide by inducing more private motor vehicle traffic. Any short term improvements in travel times would soon disappear. Another road bridge so close to the CBD and all the other bridges is an ineffective and wastefully expensive way to try and relieve congestion experienced for only a few hours each week.

  • Investing in better public transport would ease peak hour demand far more, and have a much greater impact on citywide congestion. An adequately resourced public transport system, combined with measures and facilities to encourage more walking and cycling for shorter trips, demand management (especially for special events) and other measures to reduce nonessential use of private motor vehicles (including car pooling and car sharing schemes) has been proven worldwide to fix traffic congestion. Getting commuters out of their cars frees up our roads. Apart from a being cheaper and more effective solution, it’s also more environmentally sustainable.

  • Improved cross river connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists is already being addressed by the planned Tank Street pedestrian/cycle bridge and one or more extra City Cat terminals. Another pedestrian/cycle bridge would be much cheaper and greener than HSL.

  • The negative impacts of the project are serious and the mitigation measures proposed are inadequate. In particular the health and safety hazards to school children and others close to the traffic and associated exhaust emissions haven’t been properly assessed or addressed.

  • The commercial viability of the project is doubtful and exposes all Brisbane ratepayers to unacceptable risk. Many of the assumptions in the Business Case and IAS are outdated (oil prices), wishful thinking (exhaust emissions), or highly questionable (costings of mitigation measures). Increased costs or reduced demand would mean higher rates, higher tolls, or both.

  • The hidden ‘downstream’ costs of the health and congestion problems would be met by the State Government and therefore all taxpayers. The Business Case is invalid because it is not based on the true and complete whole of project cost.

  • The project conflicts with existing State Government and Council strategies, including Queensland Transport’s Integrated Regional Transport Plan (IRTP) for South East Queensland.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Steve Irwin's Memorial Service

I won't write in great detail about the events of today's service, since others can find information on this, such as:


Instead I'll just present my observations of the day. I attended the service with Jodie G. We received VIP tickets from the Wildlife Warriors as the Environment Committee at work, of which I am the chairman, have been working with the Wildlife Warriors.

I must give a massive congratulations to Queensland Rail. They offerred free transport for those attending the service which saved maybe $10 or more. And they had a number of special return services, one of which we were able to make despite farging around after the service getting a coffee.

I caught the train at 06:07 and it took 2 hrs to get us to Beerwah and then to Australia Zoo after a short bus ride. Jodie was in a separate section of the train and I met her on the platform.

Jodie had a big wreath the Environment Committee had bought. It was made up of natives and plastic snakes and crocodiles, which we left with Wildlife Warriors. We filed into the VIP area. Unfortunately we were behind a post which made it difficult to see everything. I sat next to Shelley who is a member of the QLD Frog Society. I discussed Walk Against Warming with her and she was fully in support of it. I asked her to see our supporters site Climate_Action_Brisbane - I am part of the group that is organising the walk). Jodie sat next to Eyvonne Chapman who is the Pine Rivers Mayor. Jodie and her shared a hanky to mop up all the tears shed over the loss of Steve. Also present were Prime Minister John Howard, Senator Ian Campbell, Tim Fischer (Chair of Tourism Australia), Kim Beazley (Opposition Leader), Governor General of Australia (I think), Peter Beattie (QLD State Premier) and the Irwin family (Steve's father Bob, wife Terri, kids Bindy and Bob).

There were video messages from Russel Crowe, Cameron Diaz, Larry King, Hugh Jackman ... and Kelly Ripa (who is she and what relationship did she have with Steve? She made it sound like she's only met him a couple times. Surely there could have been many more people that would have been better to give messages. I suggest that this was driven by the US television networks. Someone else can follow this up if they like). Wez Mannon - The Directory of Australia Zoo and Steve's best mate. Steve saved him from a croc (when they were filming) and Wez cried at the end - "He saved my life. I'll miss you mate."

Professor Craig Franklin gave a speech to say he's been working with Steve on the conservation of crocks and scientific research into their lives. Steve was certainly a person that was working positively for the Environment.

Bob Irwin Snr gave a talk and it was very moving. All through the day they peppered the show with scenes of Steve in action and most were extremely amusing. Especially the one after handling a croc and it busted one of his ribs. He said how happy he is to achieved his aim and that "My job is complete". What a character and we're all going to miss him so much.

David Wenham read out hte poem THE CROCODILES ARE CRYING. That link looks awfully tenuous and so I will copy the poem:



THE CROCODILES ARE CRYING



Endless visions fill my head - this man - as large as life And instantly my heart mourns for his angels and his wife Because the way I see Steve Irwin - just put everything aside It comes back to his family - it comes back to his pride

His animals inclusive - Crikey - light the place with love! Shine his star with everything he fought to rise above The crazy-man of Khaki from the day he left the pouch Living out his dream and in that classic 'Stevo' crouch

Exploding forth with character and redefining cheek It's one thing to be honoured as a champion unique It's one thing to have microphones and spotlight cameras shoved It's another to be taken in and genuinely loved

But that was where he had it right - I guess he always knew From his fathers' modest reptile park and then Australia Zoo We cringed at times and shook our heads - but true to natures call There was something very Irwin in the make up of us all

Yes the more I care to think of it - the more he had it right If you're going to make a difference - make it big and make it bright! Yes - he was a lunatic! Yes - he went head first! But he made the world feel happy with his energetic burst

A world so large and loyal that it's hard to comprehend I doubt we truly count the warmth until life meets an end To count it now I say a prayer with words of inspiration May the spotlight shine forever on his dream for conservation

…My daughter broke the news to me - my six year old in tears It was like she'd just turned old enough to show her honest fears I tried to make some sense of it but whilst her Dad was trying His little girl explained it best…she said "The crocodiles are crying"

Their best mate's up in heaven now - the crocs up there are smiling! And as sure as flowers, poems and cards and memories are piling As sure as we'll continue with the trademarks of his spiel Of all the tributes worthy - he was rough…but he was real

As sure as 'Crikey!' fills the sky I think we'll miss ya Steve…goodbye

RUPERT McCALL 2006



What ended the show was amazing. First there was the release of Black Cockatoos and Rosellas (you only saw 1/2 a second of this on the video shown by all the networks). Apparantly this is done all the time at Australia Zoo. They flew around the Croc-o-seum, resting on people's heads (just the rosellas) and beams. They were there for 5 mins before being called back by their trainers. Then finally Steve's Ute was "driven away for the last time" by Steve's Croc-trainer or co-hand with the Crocs. That was a very teary moment. Finally there was a minute of unannounced silence before the show ended at five minutes past 10. It ran 5 minutes over time and thus why you didn't see the birds - farg I hate commercial television.

On the way out I ducked back in down near the stage and saw in big writing "1962 - 2006" under the big picture of Steve and it brought a flood of tears to my eyes. I didn't really know the man, why am I so sad at his loss?

The day was so well coordinated, coreographed and organised. I, like everyone else was very impressed. Only 2 things spoilt the day which happened independantly of the service. The coffee, which I lined up 1/2 hr to get and cost me $4.10 was the worst made cappachino I'd ever tasted. The milk was boiled and bruised and not frothy. It tasted ok at the end after it cooled down. The other was that there are no recycling facilities at Australia Zoo, which suprised me given how forceful Steve was on the conservation issue.

There was one more highlight of the day. Kym Beazley, the opposition leader was out chatting to the people. It wasn't that Kym was there, but rather that he was there when John Howard had departed as swiftly as possible in his own private (Commonwealth) Limo.

I'd like to end with a final farewell to Steve Irwin - so long mate and thanks for all the fish (that have been fed to Crocs). There will never be another like you. And well done to Queensland Rail for running a free service to and from Australia Zoo. If only more people would use these services and get out of their cars. At Beerwah Station was a sign showing that the weekly train ticket from Beerwah costs $56, but to drive a car would cost $115 and that is just the fuel costs and not the wear and tear on the vehicle and the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cost.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Brisbane Public Transport

Sorry for the break between posts. I've been so flat out cleaning up my mum's place in Sydney (we're putting it up for rent) and with Climate Action Brisbane (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Action_Brisbane/) amongst other stuff.

I wrote a letter that I discussed doing in travelsmart brisbane despite tunnel blog post, however i haven't sent it. My partner edited for me and I haven't got around to fixing it up. And it's sort of a bit late now, though I'm sure another opportunity will come up.

An opportunity did arise though I didn't send that letter and instead formulated a new one. Actually, the opportunity was with the
Deputy Mayor, Council David Hinchliffe
sending out a survey on Brisbane's Public Transport. What an opportunity! Presented below is my response to the survey (fortunately I could email a response).




From: brooke
Subject: Public Transport for Brisbane
Date: 21 August 2006 23:44:53 GMT+10:00
To: central.ward@ecn.net.au
Cc: Brooke@Tintuna.com

Gidday David,

Thankyou for giving us the opportunity of expressing our views about
Brisbane's Public Transport. It'd be great if you could supply this (or
rather, future surveys) as web forms.

Name: Brooke
Address: New Farm 4005

Q1. Which is the best way for Council to invest your rates to reduce traffic
congestion? Please rate 1-5.


1 - Fast and reliable public transport
2 - Safe bike and pedestrian pathways
3 - Tolled bridges
4 - Tolled Tunnels
5 - Upgraded roads

Q2. Have you ever been left behind at a bus or ferry stop?


Yes, though its very rare down the Southern end of New Farm near where the
buses start from. However I read some reports of this at
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20112994-3102,00.html

Q3. If fuel prices continue to rise will this influence you to catch more
public transport?


Yes, though I never need to drive to work (in the city), however if I did then,
yes the increasing fuel prices would influence me to catch more public
transport.

Q4. Which of the following would encourage you to use public transport more
often?


1 - High frequency services
2 - Electronic ticketing
3 - More express and rocket services
4 - More busways

Q5. Do you suppot Council buying more buses and ferries?


Yes

Q6. Other comments?



The number one thing that needs to change to improve public tranport is the Trans Apex Brisbane roads project - it needs to be canned. Building more roads will only encourage more cars and given the cost of this project, the council will most likely need to reduce Public Transport funding (or not to improve its services). This would create a situation where the public are being forced to drive as they will have no better alternative. I have been following the Council's busway improvements and I congradulate you all on them (though I'm a little sceptical that it will work out as well as envisioned due to the costs of the roads project. It was suggested about the Sydney Tunnel and Roads development that the public transport services were reduced so people would drive and pay the tolls. I'd hate to think this is true and would not like it to happen in my town).

My suggestion is to save the money and put it into creating a wicked public transport system. Create extended train lines, light rail, connections between all modes of transport and encourage a greater community spirit. Simple things would make such a differenence - light rail from the New Farm City Cat terminal (ie. New Farm park which receives thousands of cars each weekend), along Brunswick St that is always chockers with cars, to the Brunswick St stations and onto the Royal Brisbane Hospital / Royal Show Grounds. Do the same Light Rail connections for Suncorp Stadium and Milton Station, down along Park Rd and along to the Regatta Point City Cat stop. The point of these suggestions is to make the improvements visible, make them connect the public transport systems, make use of efficient, visible and interesting light rail and build the structures to encourage people to interact in their daily lives. Build shopping centers, other commercial property and residential developments around public transport hubs - train and light rail stations, and bus interchanges. Ultimately, give the public a choice and more than this, build infrastructure to encourage Public Transport use and a greater community spirit. I'm not a civil engineer or architect and I'm sure some decent ones could come up with some fantastic plans.

All the best in the studies and fingers crossed that we get improved Public Transport. I do apologise for sounding pushy and offside against car-based city designs. Though it is true - too many of the cities around the world are car based and we need to see that change as soon as possible. Hydrogen is a long way away and will not save us.

Cheers,

Brooke



I think there is a business opportunity in the vision of developments around public transport terminuses. If you agree and would like to help me persue this, drop me a line / comment.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Travelsmart Brisbane (despite the tunnel project)

I wish I'd become joyously happy and love the city I live in and the people I live with and who run the city and country I live. I'm not happy. I live with a society that loves money more than they love life itself. I live with a society that is constantly being presented with f'en great big messages about "its time to change how we do business", yet we continue to persue the business as usual and let (someone) make lots of money mentality. The case in point and the topic of the next couple posts is the Brisbane Tunnels (Queensland Australia). Or see North South Bypass Tunnel. On the flip-side see these other sites for opinions about the tunnel:


Our oil supplies appear to be dwindling (See Peak Oil and Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas) especially with nations such as India and China aspiring to be "just like the west" and ramping up their car production and car usage.

So much evidence has been presented to us and so many smart people have told us frankly that "Climate Change" / "Global Warming" is a reality that is going to affect every living thing on this planet and we must change the way we live. (For example, see Climate Ark Blog, Climate Hot Map, Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, WorldWide Fund for nature, Google (currently 240,000,000 hits), ...).

The message is clear, we need to drop the "business as usual" attitude and adjust to our changing surroundings and change the way we live.

In face of all this we have people like George "Dubya" Bush and John Howard with their pathetically poor leadership which continues to push the "If we get the economy working first then the environment will be fixed" attitudes. In exactly the same way, we have our somewhat unbrilliant Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, doing exactly the same thing. He's a yes man. Admittedly the proceeding Labor Council proposed the idea for the Brisbane Tunnels and I'm equally critical of them. But Campbell reeks of saying "yes" too many times and to the wrong people (such as the ones who want to fund and develop these stupid projects that appeal to him). The Tunnel project will cost billions of dollars ($2 billion up from $950 million). It will encourage so much more traffic. But worse than this, due to the cost of the project, a complete and comprehensive public transport system will not be created. Given all the problems our planet is facing an improved public transport system is the most logical development we should be embracing. By building expensive road systems we are giving our citizens NO OPTIONS as to how they get around. Build a brilliant public transport system and most people can use that leaving those who need to drive private vehicles the roads that currently exist.

Your thoughts at this stage could well be "yes, everyone has a suggestion". Yes and our myopic Council fails to consider any of them except the ones proposed by their cronies.

I am writing a letter to Lord Mayor Newman and The Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Paul Lucas MP. These two co-signed a letter sent to residents of Brisbane (I have no idea if this letter was sent to just inner-city residents or it circulated further out).

The letter is titled "Travelsmart". Let me go find an official site for this ...

My god, the irony of this is greater than I thought. Travelsmart is a national campaign to reduce pollution from transport usage and not just Queensland. This is after Sydney and Melbourne have built extensive freeway and tunnel projects that wasted more money, causes more people to drive instead of catch public transport and thus depletes our already limited supplies of fossil fuels and causes more pollution. I will continue this post by including the letter sent to me:


Dear resident,

Reducing traffic levels in your neighbourhood

Queensland Transport, the Australian Greenhouse Office and Brisbane City Council have been working in partnership on a project called Travelsmart.

Travelsmart helps tackle local traffic issues by giving residents access to information, advice and encouragement to walk, cycle and take public transport.

If you choose to take part in the Travelsmart program you will be able to order free information specially tailored to your local neighbourhood. The information available includes:


  • a local map of your neighbourhood transport options
  • special 'timetables' for your nearest bus stop, and
  • leaflets on all aspects of cycling and walking


The benefits of Travelsmart can be achieved by people simply changing just a few trips each week. his can make a big difference to traffic levl, and to your health.

Over the next few days Socialddata Australia, (telephone number 1800 68 4860) will contact you with futher information about Travelsmart. Please consider the information carefully and discuss it with other members of your household.

This is a wonderful opportunity to join a community effort that can make a big difference to your community, local area and neighbourhood. We hope you will be part of it.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Lucas MP (Minister for Transport and Main Roads)

Campbell Newman (Lord Mayor of Brisbane).


What a rort; what a bunch of tossers. They build a tunnel and say don't use it. Its like handing out chocolate bars and telling you not to eat them. They should be handing out fruit and vegetables. They should build proper public transport systems and make them so friendly, useful and efficient that people use them.

I will put my letter up when finished.

BTW, I'm quite a happy chappy. Just very frustrated.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Organic Foods

From Union of Concerned Scientists:

2. Arsenic in your chicken
Many chicken products sold in the United States are contaminated with arsenic, a known carcinogen, according to a new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Investigators found arsenic in half of 155 samples from supermarkets and in all 90 samples from fast-food restaurants. All the samples were below the tolerance level set by the Food and Drug Administration. According to the report, arsenic is legally fed to an estimated 70 percent of broiler chickens to kill parasites and promote growth. Its use on poultry farms causes environmental contamination when soils are fertilized with chicken manure containing arsenic, and when other animals are fed chicken litter containing arsenic. Arsenic is not allowed in organic chickens, and Tyson, the nation's largest chicken producer, claims not to use it. Read the report here or read about chicken and arsenic in The New York Times (free registration required). To find producers who claim not to feed their chickens additives such as arsenic and antibiotics, visit the Eat Well Guide.

3. Organic diets lower pesticide levels in the body
Eating an organic diet can dramatically lower pesticide levels in the body, according to a study that measured organophosphates in children, conducted by scientists from Emory University, the University of Washington, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Initially all 23 children were eating a conventional diet, and urine samples from all of them contained metabolites of the common pesticides malathion and chlorpyrifos. Then the children switched to an organic diet, and the pesticides in their urine dropped to undetectable levels. When the children returned to a conventional diet, the pesticide levels went back up. Read the study in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

March of the Penguins

Today I attended a movie event hosted by the Australian Democrats and the Animal Cruelty Society - "March of the Penguins". This is a documentary about the year in the life of the Emporer Penguins in Antarctica. It was amazing to see how beautiful and organised nature can be. Very inefficient maybe in our eyes though you do have to realise how much of an advanced organism we are.



Their journey starts with the mass journey of male and female Penguins at the end of summer, 70km from the sea to a safer place inland where the ice is thick. The Males and Females match up and love each other before producing an egg. The female hands the egg over to the male to look after and if they don't do the transition properly then the egg will spend too long on the ice and "die". She takes the long walk back to the sea, which is further now as winter has created more ice. The father looks after the egg through the long, cold and dark winter, and when the sun starts to rise again some three months late or so, and the days get longer and warmer, the egg hatches. The father has a little bit of food stored away and gives the chick that. It will only sustain the chick for a day or two and in that time the mother must be back - such amazing timing! In this waiting time the father could end up not holding the chick tightly enough and it doesn't take long for chick to die from the cold. When the mother gets back, she needs to find the father and chick (if they are still there), purely through calling out to them. The father then hands the chick over to the mother (again a dangerous move) and he calls to the chick and it calls back so they can find each other again later when he returns. He goes back to the sea and the mother regurgitates food to the chick to feed and strengthen it. The sea ice is melting as summer continues on, so the distance to the water becomes less and less. He goes back to get food (its a bugger of a journey for him since he hasn't eaten in something like 105 days). He returns with food and then the cycle goes on for a couple months with she going back and returning with food, and then he does the same, and so on. In this time the chick keeps growing. The parents need to be alert of predators such as flighted birds that are eager to pick off a chick or two for food. At about March the chick is prety much abandoned to fend for itself and the parents break up and dissapper back into the sea. In a couple months they'll return to find a new partner (The Penguins are monogomists whilst they are together but each season they will have a new / different partner). The chicks hang around for a while together and then after some time (not sure exactly how long) they'll take to the sea for the first time. They will return in 5 years to become parents themselves.

I'd like to get closer to nature and understand it better. In this I'd like to take more wildlife photos (in the latest Issue (eight) of Cosmos Magazine, in the section "CALL OF THE WILD", they presented the world's most beautiful photographs of the creatures and places that make our planet unique - from the winners of the 2005 Wildlife Photographer of the Year. This inspired me. The photos can be seen at Natural History Museum Exhibition.)

Saturday, April 01, 2006

The probability of global bankruptcy

At the last Climate Action Brisbane meeting at Friends of the Earth (FOE) headquarters, the following was handed out. Sources haven't been checked and authenticity hasn't been confirmed but sounds very plausible and likely given what we can see happening around us.

Extract from book "The Little Green Handbook", by Ron Nielsen, 2005, published by Scribe Publications. Reproduced without authorization under the 'fair use' doctrine of international copyright law, without profit.

Perhaps the best and most convincing short-cut to the problems associated with studying the slow process of climate change and extreme weather, lies in weather-related economic losses. The relevant records are not only well documented and scrutinized, but are also expressed in terms of a single quantity we can easily understand and appreciate - the money we have to pay for weather-induced damage. These records are maintained by insurance companies, and it is in their interest to make them reliable.

One such company is the Munich Re group, which has clients in more than 150 countries. Before being made available to clients, records of weather-related losses are checked and verified several times. They involve large sums of money, and many companies rely on their accuracy. According to Munich Re, local weather-related economic losses increased from $3 billion per year in 1980 to $80 billion per year at the end of the 20th century. Losses per decade increased from $86 billion for 1980-89 to $474 billion for 1990-99.

Only a small percentage of the losses are covered by insurance, but someone has to pay for them. Only 34 per cent of Australia's weatherh-related loses in 1998 were covered. In that year only 29 per cent were insured on the continent of America, 27 per cent in Europe, 7 per cent in Africa and 4 per cent in Asia.

Global weather-related losses covered by insurance increased from $26.2 billion for the 1980-89 decade to $123.5 billion for 1990-99. These data show that, on average, only 26 per cent of weather-related losses were insured. Accurate records of uninsured losses are also important for insurance companies, because they contribute to an understanding of what is insurable.

How long can we cope with weather-related economic losses? If global income is substantially greater than the losses, and if it increases at least as fast as the losses, we have nothing to worry about. There will always be enough money to repair the damage. If global income increases more slowly than the losses, it is worthwhile to calculate how long the money will last. To estimate this period I have analysed the data for weather-related economic losses and for global world product (GWP) both expressed in 2001 US dollars.

Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income. As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade have increased ... 450 per cent, in the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $29 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 percent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy.

Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynomial function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage, there will be no money left for anything else.




The world seems to finally be accepting what the Environmentalists have been warning everyone about for ages. The most recent issue of Time magazine has the cover story Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried.

My take on this is that the world will have to change the way it "does business" fast and voluntarily - we can't afford to wait until we are made to do it since then we will certainly have gone beyond the tipping point.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Here's Johnny!

No actually its me! I'm back, and I'm bad too!

Sorry to all my hardened readers for my absence. What have I been doing - alot but then again not much at all.

Over the last 5 weeks I've been doing:

  • The Step Up Event - Over 600 teenangers and 70 coaches plus about a group of 20 volunteers all crammed into the Brisbane City Hall. IMGP6246
  • This was followed the next week with the Step Up debrief and celebration
  • I told someone who I've known as a friend for a while now that I really missed her after not seeing her for a couple weeks. I wanted more than to see her every now and then. I wanted more than pleasant conversations on the phone. I wanted more than to suggest things she could do in her life. It took her a while to go from seeing me as a friend she loves to a lover she digs, and now it feels pretty relaxed and comfortable plus very exciting; I know it was the right thing to do. More on this when she'll let me do a media release!
  • I've spent a week in Canberra and Sydney with my mum who had a bad stroke in August 2004. She is now living in Canberra and I took her to see her Sydney house she hasn't been at since before her accident. I organised dinners with her friends from Sydney, and I also met my friends from Uni and Work. I have photos though are yet to sort them out and put them up. I aim to do that soon and will write about events then.
  • I've joined a group initially called D3 (December 3 2005 was the inaugural "Walk Against Warming") and now renamed to Climate Action Brisbane (CAB). I'm coordinating creating Web Site, Blog and Photo site for them and will provide more details here when this has been all worked out. I'm of course also involved in the meetings we have fortnightly and we hope to create some significant, interesting and hopefully entertaining events. Our purpose is to help raise people's awareness about the dire situation our World is going to experience in the face of the effects of Global Warming. Essentially, we've been given the message but are ignoring it. Why? Because money clouds people's vision.
  • I started dancing Swing again at Carina Bowls Club, Brisbane (Australia) on Thursday nights. I've also been asked to attend events with CAB and a Satsang Meditation group I've been with once, and of course, Step Up meetings, all on Thursday. Thursdays are so busy. Of course I want to do it all. I'd like to discuss the dancing I do sometime.
  • Ohh, and I have a new member in my team at work. He's an experienced Software Analyst, Designer and Java developer and my work load has finally decreased to a reasonable level! Now I can concentrate on all the other things I am trying to do <phew/>.


So stay tuned and I'll put up Blog entries about these events and link to any photos.

Keep truckin' kiddies!

Monday, February 20, 2006

Step Up Coaching session 2

I attended the Step Up Foundation Coaching second session. I attended the first session last week and wrote about it soon afterwards. This 2nd session was the same as the first but held at a different place (City Hall where the Step Up Foundation event is next Thursday and Friday (23, 24 February 2006)) and hosted / led by a different person (Jon from the Business School), and ofcourse at a different time. However for me, I partipated and listened closely to what was said and even wrote notes. I'll present the notes. I didn't need to take as many photos as another lady was there doing the same. Here are my notes from the day.

IMGP6032

The attitude of teens is one of



  1. Explorer - find out more
  2. Cruiser - just cruising along
  3. Prisoner - don't want to be there


The coaches should have



  1. Open mind - Coaches should go in with this
  2. Sense of fun
  3. Love and care for the teens - be friends
  4. Sense of contribution - eg. your own way to add value, everyone puts in, that's what makes it work


"The triangle"


The three corners:

  1. Focus
  2. Beliefs - If its possible for you then its possible for me - its just a matter of how!
  3. Strategy - see Key coaching basics


Key coaching basics



  1. Terminology - call them "teens", not "kids"
  2. Respect - we respect them for even turning up
  3. Suspend Judgment - suspend our judgment of the teens - treat them as human beings that have unlimited potential
  4. Trust - if they trust you they'll open up
  5. Confidentiality - don't say much about yourself since its all about the teens. Put the focus back on them. People like others who are like themself. Build repore, such as learn about current music so you can sound not so uninformed and 'old'.
  6. Powerful listener - 'Why?' asks about the past and the problem, not the solution. Ask 'what' or 'how' questions instead. Such as What did i learn from this, or How can I do things better.


Why choose business for Step Up?


Because there is no discrimination in business.

You're role as coach



  1. Facilitator
  2. Mentor teens - answer with a question (most of the time). Such as "Great question! What are the options we have?". Since its about them not you.
  3. Assist participants to get the most out of step up
  4. Provide a safe and trusting environment
  5. Be yourself, have fun. You will never be cool so don't even try!


Topics discussed at the event



  1. Business planning
  2. Marketing / sales
  3. Operations / customer service
  4. Team work
  5. Finance / budgeting
  6. Personal leadership
  7. Achievement
  8. Success modeling
  9. Goal setting
  10. Overcoming challenges
  11. Challenging life


Key Step Up models


If its possible for me then its possible for you - its just a matter of how


Reinforce this belief

Success Model


Decision x Action = Results
Don't be a 'gunna', be a 'doer'
(I wrote about this more in the first session).

Success / failure definition



  • Success is a few simple disciplines practised every day (discipline is knowing what you should do, when you should do it and even if you don't feel like it).
  • Failure is a few errors in judgment repeated every day.


Above the line / below the line



Will do / commit / must Success
Now --------------------------------------------> Future
Try / should / might Failure

Something is hard until it becomes easy!

Secret


A breakthrough is a breakwith - a breakwith existing beliefs