During the Internet chatter about the recent Eastern Australia Dust Storm. Some overseas people quipped about Australia not being a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. Others returned fire, saying that Australia had (two years ago). Some even then went on to figure point at the US.
Here is my thoughts about why Kyoto was always irrelevant.
Most countries that 'signed up' don't have any commitments (that was the only way to get them to sign). Most (All?) of those that did sign with commitments look like they won't meet their commitments.
The nature of the problem class (Tragedy of the Commons) means that everyone need to sign up to an agreed system of determining commitments. So they know what level of development will trigger commitments and what those commitments will be. The nature of the problem also meaning any action now (before global agreement) is only political manoeuvring and tokenism, and has no effect on the actual atmospheric carbon levels & climate. For every 'cow' you take off the commons, someone else will putting another 'cow' on (in China and India most likely).
As I've always said, there is no chance of global agreement until China & India fear civil unrest due to global warming (famine etc) more that they fear civil unrest due to poverty (staving because you're jobless). Don't think they are there yet, so I don't think anything will come from Copenhagen. Mind you the rhetoric from India in New York this last week in encouraging.
How best to spend your limited resources?
Building low carbon systems and building for resilience. What kinda low carbon systems to build now?
Resilience simply mean to do things to lessen the effect of global warning on you. Learn to grow you own food, add a rain water tank, renovate your house to be more solar passive, that kinda thing.
By all means build low carbon power sources, but remember what is important is only emissions during operations. You can emit all the carbon you want building it, you're only replacing coal fired power station carbon, in the race to get to China & India's climate pain threshold. Who know where the actual thresholds are? Guess we'll only know after we get there and everyone comes to a meaningful agreement!
Gnoll110
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Algae Farming and it's Carbon
A few days ago, David Rush, @EcoEngineering over at Twitter, tweeted about Aquentium buying a New Mexico site for an Algae farm.
I responded with a comment about one line in the press release that looked funny to me. Here our conversation.
@EcoEngineering: Aquentium Announces 475 Acre Algae BioFuel Production Project - World Stock Wire (press release) http://bit.ly/mQWf1
Me: @EcoEngineering "Aquentium’s algae-based fuels will emit approximately two-thirds less CO2..." ??? shouldn't an algae system be GHG neutral?
Me: @EcoEngineering CO2 in at pond = CO2 out when it's burnt to product power/motion?
@EcoEngineering: Thx @gnoll110 So your saying more efficient algea system=more fuels to burn=more GHG. Good point!
Me: @EcoEngineering No, that if they don't feed the algae with coal/oil & make the setup using algae fuel, how can it not be GHG neutral?
Me: @EcoEngineering that is, as long as the setup is made using algae fuel, how could if be GHG positive? (all C from the air to start with)
Me: @EcoEngineering isn't the Atlantic Conveyor sinking and depositing huge amount of C (dead algae) of ocean floor how bioshere get ride of C?
Me: Carbon accounting strike me as simplistic, quantitative (at the expense of qualitative) and proven to creative accounting. Very spinable.
@EcoEngineering: Sorry @gnoll110 I think we're on different pages.
@EcoEngineering: @gnoll110 Send me a little more info so I can formulate a response please.
The above comments where made in reference to on-going operations. In a reply I've included the 'build' carbon too. I think a working Algae farm should be greenhouse gas (GHG) negative to start with and over time become slightly GHG positive once all fossils fuel usage (as a fuel) is replaced.
My reply to David and anyone who's interested.
Second attempt at a response. First one was turning into Ben-Hur.
Here is how I see it.
All the carbon in algae come from the atmosphere in the first place, so any burning process no matter how efficient or inefficient should be neutral at worst. Indeed an inefficient burn that produced an algae-char replacement for bio-char (charcoal) could make the process helpfully GHG negative.
Now lets switch to the energy front.
I going to assume that the total energy production over the life of the algae farm & associated processing chain is greater than the total energy consumption involved in building and operation said algae farm & processing chain. (if this is not true what we really got is most likely a coal to oil plant, and a different ball game).
Given the algae farm is a net energy producer, I'm going to assume these guys eat their own dog food and this means:
* they built the farm & chain using energy from the last one they built and
* that operational energy will be drawn from the farm & chain's previous operations
If the above is true, the carbon footprint is the physical carbon embedded in making the steel and other manufactures (ie coking coal needed to make the steel).
In reality this is likely not to be true. I.e. the bio-mass oil produced is likely to be used for transport, while the chain is operated by gas fired electricity (or some other non transport grade energy source). I'm not including this in my logic because this factor is highly situational.
Back to the carbon front.
Assuming that the net energy produced is going to replace the 'worst carbon energy source'. Isn't this what emission trading systems (ETSs) do? Act as a pricing mechanism to transfer resources between players. (I'm not including net changes to total human energy demand, that shouldn't effect the carbon & energy budget of individual artefacts).
Shouldn't any carbon cost of building and operating the farm & chain be far less than the carbon cost of building/continued operation of the low cost 'worst carbon energy source' that it replaces.
Granted the shut down of the low cost 'worst carbon energy source' won't happen on the day the algae farm & processing chain go operational. But the low cost high carbon alternative won't start either. Over time (and assuming governments don't corrupt the working of an international ETS system that includes an escalating carbon cost) the 'worst carbon energy source' will get replaced.
*** A working International Climate Change Agreement that a working International ETS system would be based on is a PRE-CONDITION to successfully fighting Global Warming (what the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is pushing atm does not meet these conditions and thus is a waste of current effort and may have big opportunity costs) ***
If the above happens, isn't an algae farm going to be GHG negative. The better the gross energy production:gross energy cost ratio (for the total life cycle), the more GHG negative the algae farm should be.
At some future date.
Repeating the no build/closures of 'worst carbon energy source' cycle over time would get you to the situation where the next algae farm itself becomes a 'worst carbon energy source'. One would hope that the base carbon cost is building an algae farm without the 'worst carbon energy source' offsets (offset = 0), is low enough that at that mythical future date when the human world as run by algae farm, the carbon load will be well within the Earth's ability to absorb (on an annual basis).
Update: If you get metal recycle percentages increasing, the net energy production would drop. but fossil fuel usage (as a feed stock, not a fuel) would drop too. This would close the introduction of fossil fuel (new) carbon into the carbon cycle down even more. More new carbon now (before the peak carbon), less new carbon later (at and after peak carbon): a good thing.
The end.
David, peer review to you hearts content. This in just a thought experiment on my part. Hope people find it helpful.
Gnoll110
I responded with a comment about one line in the press release that looked funny to me. Here our conversation.
@EcoEngineering: Aquentium Announces 475 Acre Algae BioFuel Production Project - World Stock Wire (press release) http://bit.ly/mQWf1
Me: @EcoEngineering "Aquentium’s algae-based fuels will emit approximately two-thirds less CO2..." ??? shouldn't an algae system be GHG neutral?
Me: @EcoEngineering CO2 in at pond = CO2 out when it's burnt to product power/motion?
@EcoEngineering: Thx @gnoll110 So your saying more efficient algea system=more fuels to burn=more GHG. Good point!
Me: @EcoEngineering No, that if they don't feed the algae with coal/oil & make the setup using algae fuel, how can it not be GHG neutral?
Me: @EcoEngineering that is, as long as the setup is made using algae fuel, how could if be GHG positive? (all C from the air to start with)
Me: @EcoEngineering isn't the Atlantic Conveyor sinking and depositing huge amount of C (dead algae) of ocean floor how bioshere get ride of C?
Me: Carbon accounting strike me as simplistic, quantitative (at the expense of qualitative) and proven to creative accounting. Very spinable.
@EcoEngineering: Sorry @gnoll110 I think we're on different pages.
@EcoEngineering: @gnoll110 Send me a little more info so I can formulate a response please.
The above comments where made in reference to on-going operations. In a reply I've included the 'build' carbon too. I think a working Algae farm should be greenhouse gas (GHG) negative to start with and over time become slightly GHG positive once all fossils fuel usage (as a fuel) is replaced.
My reply to David and anyone who's interested.
Second attempt at a response. First one was turning into Ben-Hur.
Here is how I see it.
All the carbon in algae come from the atmosphere in the first place, so any burning process no matter how efficient or inefficient should be neutral at worst. Indeed an inefficient burn that produced an algae-char replacement for bio-char (charcoal) could make the process helpfully GHG negative.
Now lets switch to the energy front.
I going to assume that the total energy production over the life of the algae farm & associated processing chain is greater than the total energy consumption involved in building and operation said algae farm & processing chain. (if this is not true what we really got is most likely a coal to oil plant, and a different ball game).
Given the algae farm is a net energy producer, I'm going to assume these guys eat their own dog food and this means:
* they built the farm & chain using energy from the last one they built and
* that operational energy will be drawn from the farm & chain's previous operations
If the above is true, the carbon footprint is the physical carbon embedded in making the steel and other manufactures (ie coking coal needed to make the steel).
In reality this is likely not to be true. I.e. the bio-mass oil produced is likely to be used for transport, while the chain is operated by gas fired electricity (or some other non transport grade energy source). I'm not including this in my logic because this factor is highly situational.
Back to the carbon front.
Assuming that the net energy produced is going to replace the 'worst carbon energy source'. Isn't this what emission trading systems (ETSs) do? Act as a pricing mechanism to transfer resources between players. (I'm not including net changes to total human energy demand, that shouldn't effect the carbon & energy budget of individual artefacts).
Shouldn't any carbon cost of building and operating the farm & chain be far less than the carbon cost of building/continued operation of the low cost 'worst carbon energy source' that it replaces.
Granted the shut down of the low cost 'worst carbon energy source' won't happen on the day the algae farm & processing chain go operational. But the low cost high carbon alternative won't start either. Over time (and assuming governments don't corrupt the working of an international ETS system that includes an escalating carbon cost) the 'worst carbon energy source' will get replaced.
*** A working International Climate Change Agreement that a working International ETS system would be based on is a PRE-CONDITION to successfully fighting Global Warming (what the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is pushing atm does not meet these conditions and thus is a waste of current effort and may have big opportunity costs) ***
If the above happens, isn't an algae farm going to be GHG negative. The better the gross energy production:gross energy cost ratio (for the total life cycle), the more GHG negative the algae farm should be.
At some future date.
Repeating the no build/closures of 'worst carbon energy source' cycle over time would get you to the situation where the next algae farm itself becomes a 'worst carbon energy source'. One would hope that the base carbon cost is building an algae farm without the 'worst carbon energy source' offsets (offset = 0), is low enough that at that mythical future date when the human world as run by algae farm, the carbon load will be well within the Earth's ability to absorb (on an annual basis).
Update: If you get metal recycle percentages increasing, the net energy production would drop. but fossil fuel usage (as a feed stock, not a fuel) would drop too. This would close the introduction of fossil fuel (new) carbon into the carbon cycle down even more. More new carbon now (before the peak carbon), less new carbon later (at and after peak carbon): a good thing.
The end.
David, peer review to you hearts content. This in just a thought experiment on my part. Hope people find it helpful.
Gnoll110
Friday, July 31, 2009
World's Greenest Homes: just a Coffee Table Book
Over the last two Thursday, first two episodes of World's Greenest Homes has gone to air on ABC1.
It does not stand up well against Grand Designs.
This tweet about sums it up: #worldsgreenesthomes is a glossy coffee table to #granddesigns DIY manual, comparatively. Good for a few ideas, no detail.
Im going to tweet the good points of each hone as I watch each program. You can search for them with this Twitter Search.
Gnoll110
It does not stand up well against Grand Designs.
This tweet about sums it up: #worldsgreenesthomes is a glossy coffee table to #granddesigns DIY manual, comparatively. Good for a few ideas, no detail.
Im going to tweet the good points of each hone as I watch each program. You can search for them with this Twitter Search.
Gnoll110
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Doing a toaster from scratch
Found this hand made toaster url in my twitter stream. Love New Scientist, had to have a look.
An £5 manufactured artifact cost £1200 to put together from scratch. How far we have come in 250 years. Glad I don't have to be a Shepard because we hadn't got around to inventing fencing wire!
Now to figure out what I can do without to fit back into a 'Annual Solar Input' budget. You know the amount of energy get without burning fossil fuels!
Gnoll110
An £5 manufactured artifact cost £1200 to put together from scratch. How far we have come in 250 years. Glad I don't have to be a Shepard because we hadn't got around to inventing fencing wire!
Now to figure out what I can do without to fit back into a 'Annual Solar Input' budget. You know the amount of energy get without burning fossil fuels!
Gnoll110
Friday, May 01, 2009
Batteries and Oil to Solar
Talk on twitter last night got on to the topic 'oil to solar'. I think the topic needs a post about batteries just to make things more informed and complex.
The are 3 battery types I wish to expend on. What I call electrochemical, potential energy and thermal.
Electrochemical
These are what we normally think of as batteries. It covers many chemical reaction the produce electrical current. They are all example of Galvanic cells. The two most common are the Lead-acid battery used in cars and the ubiquitous Alkaline battery of screaming children on Christmas day fame. Some are rechargeable, some aren't.
In some application, like electric cars, where size and weight is an issue there a many exotic reactions under consideration. Being exotic, cost and rarity become an issue for wide spread application becomes.
At the other end of the scale is the Nickel-iron battery. An old, bulky and relatively benign chemistry that uses cheaper common materials.
Potential Energy
This type of battery system is not common, but where the situation is right, it can be very large store of energy. It involves two bodies of water at different heights (the bigger the difference, the better). Water is pumped from the low storage to the high storage when excess power of available. When power is needed the water is allowed to return to the lower storage, generating hydroelectric power in the process.
Thermal
These are systems where energy is store at heat. The simplest example is a well design fireplace. A single evenings fire can stores enough heat is the mass of the fire place to keep a well insulated rooms temperate elevated for 48 hours.
I divide these systems into Low temperature differential (LTD) and High temperature differential (HTD). LTD is where the store's temperature is less than 100C above ambient and HTD is where it's greater than 100C above.
A example of a LTD system is a Solar pond. An idea battery for providing heat to industrial processes like desalination. Electricity can also be generated using LTD heat engines.
A example of a HTD system is a Molten salt thermal system (not to be confused with Molten salt electrochemical batteries). There are many salts and these many temperature ranges to play with here. Right up to like 1600C, which start to made designs trickier/more expense, since common materials like iron & steel also melt at these higher temperatures.
Hope this gives people an idea of the range and have exotic battery systems can get.
Gnoll110
The are 3 battery types I wish to expend on. What I call electrochemical, potential energy and thermal.
Electrochemical
These are what we normally think of as batteries. It covers many chemical reaction the produce electrical current. They are all example of Galvanic cells. The two most common are the Lead-acid battery used in cars and the ubiquitous Alkaline battery of screaming children on Christmas day fame. Some are rechargeable, some aren't.
In some application, like electric cars, where size and weight is an issue there a many exotic reactions under consideration. Being exotic, cost and rarity become an issue for wide spread application becomes.
At the other end of the scale is the Nickel-iron battery. An old, bulky and relatively benign chemistry that uses cheaper common materials.
Potential Energy
This type of battery system is not common, but where the situation is right, it can be very large store of energy. It involves two bodies of water at different heights (the bigger the difference, the better). Water is pumped from the low storage to the high storage when excess power of available. When power is needed the water is allowed to return to the lower storage, generating hydroelectric power in the process.
Thermal
These are systems where energy is store at heat. The simplest example is a well design fireplace. A single evenings fire can stores enough heat is the mass of the fire place to keep a well insulated rooms temperate elevated for 48 hours.
I divide these systems into Low temperature differential (LTD) and High temperature differential (HTD). LTD is where the store's temperature is less than 100C above ambient and HTD is where it's greater than 100C above.
A example of a LTD system is a Solar pond. An idea battery for providing heat to industrial processes like desalination. Electricity can also be generated using LTD heat engines.
A example of a HTD system is a Molten salt thermal system (not to be confused with Molten salt electrochemical batteries). There are many salts and these many temperature ranges to play with here. Right up to like 1600C, which start to made designs trickier/more expense, since common materials like iron & steel also melt at these higher temperatures.
Hope this gives people an idea of the range and have exotic battery systems can get.
Gnoll110
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Does Queensland Government planning suck?
Yesterday on ABC radio there was an interview with a town planner. He was talking about the Draft South East Queensland plan.
Sounds like they want an Urban & empty green space plan. All high and medium density urban or empty green (forest and farmland) space for urbanites to look at on their Sunday arvo drive in the country.
He seemed to think it was a good idea. As someone who would raised on the land and is not a farmer, but wants some room this move sucks.
New development is all small blocks or high raise (urban consolidation etc). Access to larger block (say an ½ hectare to 100 hectares) seems a thing of the past, specifically locking out sea and tree changers. The country looks to be becoming a patch of larger commercial (family & company) farms and small blocks that can't support a family full time. These smaller blocks are effectively frozen, too big to be subdivided unlocking value for the seller, too big for new smallholder to acquire for niche operations.
It leaves the small towns in a limbo of slow death. As the broadacre operations consolidate, towns and districts loose their population base. This lead to the lose of services (teachers, nurses etc to begin with, then schools, hospitals, banks, post offices etc), the start of a downward spiral if left unchecked. The only way to stop this decline is to allow population increase and that is locked out by these new planning trends. People who want to live in country towns don't move there to live like sardines. They want bigger blocks, either serviced town blocks or unserviced smallholding.
Gnoll110
Sounds like they want an Urban & empty green space plan. All high and medium density urban or empty green (forest and farmland) space for urbanites to look at on their Sunday arvo drive in the country.
He seemed to think it was a good idea. As someone who would raised on the land and is not a farmer, but wants some room this move sucks.
New development is all small blocks or high raise (urban consolidation etc). Access to larger block (say an ½ hectare to 100 hectares) seems a thing of the past, specifically locking out sea and tree changers. The country looks to be becoming a patch of larger commercial (family & company) farms and small blocks that can't support a family full time. These smaller blocks are effectively frozen, too big to be subdivided unlocking value for the seller, too big for new smallholder to acquire for niche operations.
It leaves the small towns in a limbo of slow death. As the broadacre operations consolidate, towns and districts loose their population base. This lead to the lose of services (teachers, nurses etc to begin with, then schools, hospitals, banks, post offices etc), the start of a downward spiral if left unchecked. The only way to stop this decline is to allow population increase and that is locked out by these new planning trends. People who want to live in country towns don't move there to live like sardines. They want bigger blocks, either serviced town blocks or unserviced smallholding.
Gnoll110
Saturday, January 31, 2009
A Place of My Own
Several months ago I went to order 'A Place of my Own', by Micheal Pollan.
I found that it was Out of Print. I was due to be republished in January O9. I preordered it then.
On the 12, the first week day after getting back from Queensland, I went into Smith Bookshop to check. It was there, They said it arrived just before the weekend, Happiness!
Found there was no wikipedia page for the book, that is now rectified.
Gnoll110
I found that it was Out of Print. I was due to be republished in January O9. I preordered it then.
On the 12, the first week day after getting back from Queensland, I went into Smith Bookshop to check. It was there, They said it arrived just before the weekend, Happiness!
Found there was no wikipedia page for the book, that is now rectified.
Gnoll110
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Beyond the Brink
Got Beyond the Brink by Peter Andrews for Christmas.
Only done a quick skim and read the first two chapters.
One point I've already pick up and agree with is the amount of climate change that is human induced but not due to greenhouse gases. Deforestation, particularly where the amount of tree cover drops below 10% is having a large affect on the local and regional scale that few city people understand and many farmers underestimate.
I think a lot of the lose of rainfall in the Eastern coast and internal of Australia is due to over clearing at the farm and shire level. The most stable rainfall is inevitably east of areas that are protected for some reason or where the country was so 'poor' that agriculture never got established.
Gnoll110
Only done a quick skim and read the first two chapters.
One point I've already pick up and agree with is the amount of climate change that is human induced but not due to greenhouse gases. Deforestation, particularly where the amount of tree cover drops below 10% is having a large affect on the local and regional scale that few city people understand and many farmers underestimate.
I think a lot of the lose of rainfall in the Eastern coast and internal of Australia is due to over clearing at the farm and shire level. The most stable rainfall is inevitably east of areas that are protected for some reason or where the country was so 'poor' that agriculture never got established.
Gnoll110
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Australia's move to draconian law
I'm in the process of reading Volumes I and II of Brad Lancaster's 'Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond'. Volume I is Guiding Principles and Volume II is Water-Harvesting Earthworks. The yet to be published Volume III will covers roof catchments and cistern systems.
There is a very timely comment in the Introduction to Volume I, I want to share. The last two pages of the Introduction, pages 20 and 21, is a FAQ. What follows is one of the questions and the first paragraph of Brad's response.
Gnoll110
There is a very timely comment in the Introduction to Volume I, I want to share. The last two pages of the Introduction, pages 20 and 21, is a FAQ. What follows is one of the questions and the first paragraph of Brad's response.
Are there rainwater-harvesting building codes.Over the last 30 years, the laws in Australia have gone from reasonably fair to draconian. Up until about 1980 water was tied to land title, it management and use was integrated into the landholders management practices for each individual farm. Due to changes in technology (bigger pumped and earth moving gear), some law reform was needed in the 80s. The states governments used these reforms to not tweak, but to grabbed water and make it a tradeable profit centre for their budgets.
Surface water laws vary around the country (Brad is based in Arizona), so it's wise to check in with local authorities. In my area folks can harvest all the water that falls directly on their site, but there are restriction on harvesting runoff within established waterways that pass through their site. Some arid countries have draconian laws prohibiting the harvesting of rainwater runoff generated on site. In such instances, harvest the rain before it becomes runoff.
Gnoll110
Friday, October 31, 2008
Senator Wong: incompetent, uncaring or both
Watched '4 Corners' last week. Even though its been over 10 days since it screened, I still feel strongly enough to comment about it.
Basically it shows Senator Penny Wong (the Minister for Climate Change & Water?) in both an uncaring and incompetent light at the same time. That's a combination you don't often see together!
One of her statement basically summed up the feel of the story. In plan English, she effectively said, 'My job isn't to fix the Murray/Darling, it to buy water'. A telling comment. A typical pollies comment and it show a major and chronic source of political problems. The partial quiet fixed. Fix a problem to get by for now, but level a system with at least one fundamental flaw that will be lead to crisis somewhere in the future (hopefully more the 3 or 4 years in the future).
Gnoll110
Basically it shows Senator Penny Wong (the Minister for Climate Change & Water?) in both an uncaring and incompetent light at the same time. That's a combination you don't often see together!
One of her statement basically summed up the feel of the story. In plan English, she effectively said, 'My job isn't to fix the Murray/Darling, it to buy water'. A telling comment. A typical pollies comment and it show a major and chronic source of political problems. The partial quiet fixed. Fix a problem to get by for now, but level a system with at least one fundamental flaw that will be lead to crisis somewhere in the future (hopefully more the 3 or 4 years in the future).
Gnoll110
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Can Capitalism save the Rain forests?
Tonight, ABC’s Foreign Correspondent is showing a programs entitled 'Amazon Rainforest - Can Money Grow on Trees?'. Without see the program, I going to say yes.
Why? For me it’s a matter of first principles of economics and ecology. The very words themselves point to the way forward. Both are derived from the Greek ‘eco’ (oikos), meaning 'house'.
I will argue the economics is the ecology of human societies. Money is a token measure of energy and materiel. Ecology is a study of the measure and flows of energy and materiel in the wider biosphere. Classical economics is the study competition between individual and organisation. There is cooperation and other behaviors that are seen in ecology. Lots of strategies and tactics are displayed by organisms. Taking these and applying them to economics problems and situation should be the main source for developing viable global warning measures.
Gnoll110
Why? For me it’s a matter of first principles of economics and ecology. The very words themselves point to the way forward. Both are derived from the Greek ‘eco’ (oikos), meaning 'house'.
I will argue the economics is the ecology of human societies. Money is a token measure of energy and materiel. Ecology is a study of the measure and flows of energy and materiel in the wider biosphere. Classical economics is the study competition between individual and organisation. There is cooperation and other behaviors that are seen in ecology. Lots of strategies and tactics are displayed by organisms. Taking these and applying them to economics problems and situation should be the main source for developing viable global warning measures.
Gnoll110
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DNC, Biden and The Oil Drum on Trains and Peak Oil
It Democratic Nation Convention time in the US at the moment. I'm going to pull a few thread together and point at some goodness that could follow.
The Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden is a well know rail champion. He could be a major factor in taking some major peak oil/global warming action in the US (if elected).
Last year I blog on what we should be doing in Queensland and Australia generally.
Last month, TheOilDrum a peak oil site, ran a great article about railway electrification in the US. Lots of debate and chatter persued, all good value :)
Here are wikipedia's notes on railway electrification (root page), and pages related to the UK and the US.
If Joe Biden does choose to pursue this and succeeds, it will likely be his greatest contribution to his country. It would be what he's remembered for, short of getting himself enpeached. So Joe, no late night expedition to the Republican Party Nation Headquarters!
Gnoll110
The Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden is a well know rail champion. He could be a major factor in taking some major peak oil/global warming action in the US (if elected).
Last year I blog on what we should be doing in Queensland and Australia generally.
Last month, TheOilDrum a peak oil site, ran a great article about railway electrification in the US. Lots of debate and chatter persued, all good value :)
Here are wikipedia's notes on railway electrification (root page), and pages related to the UK and the US.
If Joe Biden does choose to pursue this and succeeds, it will likely be his greatest contribution to his country. It would be what he's remembered for, short of getting himself enpeached. So Joe, no late night expedition to the Republican Party Nation Headquarters!
Gnoll110
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Guerrilla Solar manifesto
Been reading Alternative Technology Association's (ATA) ReNew magazine. The current edition (#104, July-Sept 2008).
It has a great article entitle Guerrilla solar in the Aussie 'burbs. It's sub headed Installing grid-connect solar can be a frustrating process. Some people just give up and do it their own way, writes Avery 'Sonny' Daze and Jenny Rait.
It talks about putting a small system together. The dirty games that utilities play and getting a systems connected.
It ends this manifesto
The Guerrilla Solar manifesto
What a great call to arms!
Gnoll110
It has a great article entitle Guerrilla solar in the Aussie 'burbs. It's sub headed Installing grid-connect solar can be a frustrating process. Some people just give up and do it their own way, writes Avery 'Sonny' Daze and Jenny Rait.
It talks about putting a small system together. The dirty games that utilities play and getting a systems connected.
It ends this manifesto
The Guerrilla Solar manifesto
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all energy is freely and democratically provided by Nature, that utilities both public & private have no monopoly on the production and distribution of energy, that this century's monopolisation of energy by utilities threatens the health of our environment and the very life of our planet.
I. We, the Solar Guerrillas of this planet, therefore resolve to place energy made from sunshine, wind, and falling water on this planet's utility grids with or without permission from utilities or governments.
II. We resolve to share this energy with our neighbours without regard for financial compensation.
III. We further resolve that our renewable energy systems will be safe and will not harm utility workers, our neighbours, or our environment.
Signed: Solar Guerrillas of Planet Earth
What a great call to arms!
Gnoll110
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Queensland floodwater and where it went
Back in January it rain in southern Queensland. Four days after this post it rain at home. The heaviest falls in a short period in over 30 years. 770 points (192.5mm) overnight followed by enough in storms & showers to get over 1000 points/10 inches (250mm) in four days. Can't believe I didn't post about this then!
Anyway, I got home for a week in May. Talked to my father about what happened to the water, between the grapevine & news/current affairs (ABC generally), we worked out it all went to two places.
A majority of it end up in irrigation (public & private) storages in the Western Division of NSW. Bleed out of the Darling River both legally and illegally.
What got past the mouth of the Darling at Wentworth disappeared by/at Lock 1. That happens to be the point where Adelaide draw its water.
Nothing got to the lower lakes, the crisis there continues! The first thing to do is to stop transferring water out of the basin. That mean Adelaide and Melbourne!
Gnoll110
Anyway, I got home for a week in May. Talked to my father about what happened to the water, between the grapevine & news/current affairs (ABC generally), we worked out it all went to two places.
A majority of it end up in irrigation (public & private) storages in the Western Division of NSW. Bleed out of the Darling River both legally and illegally.
What got past the mouth of the Darling at Wentworth disappeared by/at Lock 1. That happens to be the point where Adelaide draw its water.
Nothing got to the lower lakes, the crisis there continues! The first thing to do is to stop transferring water out of the basin. That mean Adelaide and Melbourne!
Gnoll110
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tale of Three Cities
Last week a bit of publicly funded propaganda arrived in my mail box.
The one thing struck me in the ‘Budget Highlights 2008-2009’ was that the ACT Labor government is fond of trees. Indeed is seems to be the only tool in their climate change toolbox.
Here are the climate change dot points by town area.
Belconnen:
Additional tree plantings – Lake Ginninderra.
Canberra Central:
$0.267 million for Tree Replacement Program – Inner South and Inner North.
$0.250 million for Additional Tree Plantings at Lake Burley Griffin.
Gungahlin:
Additional tree plantings at Gungahlin.
Tuggeranong:
Additional tree plantings at Lake Tuggeranong.
Woden, Weston Creek and Molonglo:
$10.6 million for One Million Trees Initiative – Canberra International Arboretum and Gardens.
I’ve always said that renewable energy programs are a far better investment, than the knee jerk ‘plant trees’ response, for building a sustainable climate future.
Given the twists and turns in the Tuggeranong Power Station project, maybe it’s time for another approach.
Canberra hosts the Australian Federal Parliament. Lets look at the city that hosts the mother parliament; London.
The last Lord Mayor of London, Ken Livingston, set in motion a plan to make the city far most sustainable. The new Lord Mayor has undertaken to continue this drive.
What was the first thing that London did, it poached the guy that had the most foresight and experience with this kind of infrastructure redevelopment. They made Allan Jones, the energy services manager for Woking, an offer he couldn’t refuse. Over the last 20 years, he has nudged and lead the development and integration of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems and other efficient decentralized developments into the infrastructure of the English city.
Stuff about Woking and London.
Woking is a city of 60,000, a good match for the basic units of Canberra’s development, the towns.
This work doesn’t come cheap. Anyone who says fixing climate change will cost a household $200 a years in extra costs is dreaming, deluded or a con man.
Gnoll110
The one thing struck me in the ‘Budget Highlights 2008-2009’ was that the ACT Labor government is fond of trees. Indeed is seems to be the only tool in their climate change toolbox.
Here are the climate change dot points by town area.
Belconnen:
Additional tree plantings – Lake Ginninderra.
Canberra Central:
$0.267 million for Tree Replacement Program – Inner South and Inner North.
$0.250 million for Additional Tree Plantings at Lake Burley Griffin.
Gungahlin:
Additional tree plantings at Gungahlin.
Tuggeranong:
Additional tree plantings at Lake Tuggeranong.
Woden, Weston Creek and Molonglo:
$10.6 million for One Million Trees Initiative – Canberra International Arboretum and Gardens.
I’ve always said that renewable energy programs are a far better investment, than the knee jerk ‘plant trees’ response, for building a sustainable climate future.
Given the twists and turns in the Tuggeranong Power Station project, maybe it’s time for another approach.
Canberra hosts the Australian Federal Parliament. Lets look at the city that hosts the mother parliament; London.
The last Lord Mayor of London, Ken Livingston, set in motion a plan to make the city far most sustainable. The new Lord Mayor has undertaken to continue this drive.
What was the first thing that London did, it poached the guy that had the most foresight and experience with this kind of infrastructure redevelopment. They made Allan Jones, the energy services manager for Woking, an offer he couldn’t refuse. Over the last 20 years, he has nudged and lead the development and integration of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems and other efficient decentralized developments into the infrastructure of the English city.
Stuff about Woking and London.
Woking is a city of 60,000, a good match for the basic units of Canberra’s development, the towns.
This work doesn’t come cheap. Anyone who says fixing climate change will cost a household $200 a years in extra costs is dreaming, deluded or a con man.
Gnoll110
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Quarantine, the balls in your court.
There are plans to bring the dead human body into Australia, as part of World Youth Day 08.
The said body belongs to the Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati, an Italian Catholic activist, who died of polio at age 24, in 1925.
Have done searches at both Customs's & Quarantine's web sites and come up blank.
I want to know how is this cadaver being treated and handled. Is the cadaver being treated and sealed by Customs/Quarantine before is leaves for Australia. Where is it traveling to and how is it being held, while here.
I’m sure there is a camp that will simple say “It’s a blessed body, therefore there is no risk”. I’m afraid that not enough for me. God gave me a mind and I'm going to use it!
How can people in Australia’s farming, grazing, forestry and fisheries sectors, as well as the general public, be assured the nothing unwanted is being brought in during this visit?
Maybe we should cremate the cadaver. If it survives the flames, it’s blessed and they can bring it in. If not, then they can bring the ashes to World Youth Day instead.
Gnoll110
The said body belongs to the Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati, an Italian Catholic activist, who died of polio at age 24, in 1925.
Have done searches at both Customs's & Quarantine's web sites and come up blank.
I want to know how is this cadaver being treated and handled. Is the cadaver being treated and sealed by Customs/Quarantine before is leaves for Australia. Where is it traveling to and how is it being held, while here.
I’m sure there is a camp that will simple say “It’s a blessed body, therefore there is no risk”. I’m afraid that not enough for me. God gave me a mind and I'm going to use it!
How can people in Australia’s farming, grazing, forestry and fisheries sectors, as well as the general public, be assured the nothing unwanted is being brought in during this visit?
Maybe we should cremate the cadaver. If it survives the flames, it’s blessed and they can bring it in. If not, then they can bring the ashes to World Youth Day instead.
Gnoll110
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Cycle, it's all cycles!
We’ve all seen the Atmospherics CO2 graph for the last few decades. It’s an upward trending line with an annual fluctuation. The uptrend is largely the result of the burning of coal & petroleum over the last 250 years. The annual fluctuation is caused by the photosynthesis/respiration/decay cycle of vegetation, the bulk of which is in the northern hemisphere.
Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide
Ok, to stop the up trend, it pretty obvious what we need to do. Stop burn coal & petroleum! We need to shoehorn ourselves back into the annuals solar/geothermal energy budgets of the planet.
For some reason that’s beyond me, the knee jerk reaction seem to be to try to ‘freeze’ carbon out of the atmosphere using whatever mean is available. To shoehorn ourselves back into the annuals energy budgets of the planet we need to work with the carbom cycle, even accelerate it, not freeze within parts of it. This topic will be an assay in its own right, for the future. Stay tuned.
Gnoll110
Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide
Ok, to stop the up trend, it pretty obvious what we need to do. Stop burn coal & petroleum! We need to shoehorn ourselves back into the annuals solar/geothermal energy budgets of the planet.
For some reason that’s beyond me, the knee jerk reaction seem to be to try to ‘freeze’ carbon out of the atmosphere using whatever mean is available. To shoehorn ourselves back into the annuals energy budgets of the planet we need to work with the carbom cycle, even accelerate it, not freeze within parts of it. This topic will be an assay in its own right, for the future. Stay tuned.
Gnoll110
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
1 billion less for the Murray/Darling?
I'm on Twitter, also as Gnoll110
Someone commented about the polish of Sen. Penny Wong, on the Lateline interview last night. I saw that and jotted down the figures and programs that the money was to be spent on. Here is my twitter updates.
I'm not saying any of the extra money (1 b., the Victorian sweetener, or the new 2.9/3.0 b.) won't be spent in the Murray/Darling, just that the detail is missing. 1.5 billion is ear-tagged for desal, so that defiantly won't be spent in the basin.
Personal I'm of the option that water brought off farmers shouldn't be used outside the basin. If you've got a better use for the water, you should be setting up in the basin and using it here. If you don't, you're just transferring more wealth and economic activity to the big state capitals. Repeating the mistakes of the last 200 years.
Gnoll110
Someone commented about the polish of Sen. Penny Wong, on the Lateline interview last night. I saw that and jotted down the figures and programs that the money was to be spent on. Here is my twitter updates.
Did you notice that Tony had to correct her on the total combined cost of all of the programs.
... and that she omitted stating the cost of one of the programs, thus you couldn't cross check the maths.
... I went back to the papers (the Age in March) to get the missing figure.
If you add them up, they come to $100 million more that the total figure Tony used. 'Rounding' error? 12.9 billion vs 13 billion.
Personally I'm a substance over style person.
If you count up what is specifically eartagged for the Murray/Darling, it comes to 9 Billion (1 b. less than the old 10 b.)
I'm not saying any of the extra money (1 b., the Victorian sweetener, or the new 2.9/3.0 b.) won't be spent in the Murray/Darling, just that the detail is missing. 1.5 billion is ear-tagged for desal, so that defiantly won't be spent in the basin.
Personal I'm of the option that water brought off farmers shouldn't be used outside the basin. If you've got a better use for the water, you should be setting up in the basin and using it here. If you don't, you're just transferring more wealth and economic activity to the big state capitals. Repeating the mistakes of the last 200 years.
Gnoll110
Monday, March 31, 2008
Carbon & its history
You didn't realise how basic peoples understanding of a well known problem can be at times.
Yes, not all carbon was created equal. History counts!
Here is part of a thread on the subject.
My initial post, part of a wider thread.
The initial response.
My reply, on why I think carbon is not all equal. History (source) counts.
The reply about my thoughts
My second reply. Here I try to tease carbon out of other pollution issues. This case local ones.
I posted the comment, hoping they help people understand the cycle of life (particularly carbon) better.
Gnoll110
Yes, not all carbon was created equal. History counts!
Here is part of a thread on the subject.
My initial post, part of a wider thread.
> One issue is how much GH gases you release, but more important is where the carbon (including embody energy) came from in the first place. Is a fire better that an electric light? Would the depend of if the electricity is solar or gas or oil or coal fired. Is the fire a wood fire or brickettes?
>
> I always ask, "where was that energy a year ago, 10 years ago, a hundred years and a thousand years ago?" Ultimately you're going to end up in one of four places. The sun, heat in the crust or below, the moon (tidal) or in a since mined crust deposit (I use this wording to cover exhaustible fossil fuels & radioactives).
>
> I'll leave you to work out witch 3 are exceptable and witch one isn't!
The initial response.
Hi there I'm still a newbie with lots to learn. So correct me if I am wrong you are saying condensed burning a 10 year old tree is more acceptable than condensed burning a 10 million year old tree and of the same ammount ?
I think the question was is the release greater at the power station than if every household was burning ?. There is simply no space on standard household blocks to have a huge array to produce their own solar energy to meet the same loads, that would also be the argument that appliances not just lights are just as inefficient as current solar technology :)
My reply, on why I think carbon is not all equal. History (source) counts.
The carbon in the tree is carbon that is in the carbon cycle. It moves through different parts of the biosphere over time. Moving between plants, animals, the atmosphere, the oceans and soils. Each of these five can be though of as a 'pool'. This carbon is constantly on the move. Part of the ongoing cycle of the biosphere and life. This carbon has fuelled human societies since we could rub two sticks together and this movement is generally fuelled by the sun.
Fossil carbon has been out of the above pools for ten if not hundreds of millions of years. When you burn fossil fuel you’re releasing 'new' carbon on the biosphere, and it usually ends up in the atmospheric or oceanic pools.
So when you burn carbon to make light (or movement or heat etc), it’s the history of that carbon that is important.
When it comes to removing carbon, it don't matter which carbon you remove.
How we farm, graze, forest and fish is important, but to a lesser degree. These processes determine how carbon is distributed between the five 'pools'. We need to move carbon to the plants, animals and the soils 'pools' from the atmospheric and oceanic 'pools'. The atmosphere and the oceans are so closely coupled in some ways they are just one 'pool'.
When I use the term solar, I'm referring to all sun powered systems, photovoltaic, thermal (dish & rheostat systems), biomass, wind and waves. Remember waves are driven by the wind. Wind in turn is driven by differential heating of the earth by the sun. You’re right, photovoltaic are still so poor on a system lifetime basis, that they are still effectively at the research & prototype stage. We got to start somewhere. Edison is said to have tested 10,000 configurations to get an appreciable one.
The reply about my thoughts
Thanks knoll. I never saw it that way, but oil has been referred to as
ancient sun energy or something like that. I would see it worse off
though if everyone started mass polluting from their homes don't you
think ? Thats why incinerators were banned, wasn't it. If incinerators
were banned that is a double standard for the industries then heh :)
Sorry i send this offlist so I don't bore the list with my ranting so
people don't get the wrong idea of me as i'm new :\
My second reply. Here I try to tease carbon out of other pollution issues. This case local ones.
Yep, oil has been referred to as ancient sun energy (coal too), the operative word is ancient. What this means is that the carbon is not in one of the biospheric carbon ‘pools’, but is in the geologic carbon ‘pool’.
There is normally very little movement between the biospheric carbon ‘pools’ and the geologic carbon ‘pool’. Some oil tars seeps to the surface here, some dead vegetation and animals sink to the bottom of a swamp, lake or sea and is buried there. The last 250 years ain’t normal.
The bans on incinerators, leaf burning etc are spot bans to stop local pollution hot spots. As with any activity, there are likely to be GH effects. There are two ways to look at leaf burning. You’re just releasing back to the air, carbon that was taken out last spring & summer. The other was is that you’re diverting carbon. You’re releasing carbon back to the air via near instant combustion instead of via slow decay, absorption into plants etc. You’re changing the distribution between the ‘pools’, at least in the short term.
I posted the comment, hoping they help people understand the cycle of life (particularly carbon) better.
Gnoll110
Friday, February 29, 2008
Rammed earth.
During the month I got hold of The Rammed Earth House by David Easton. Been a great read.
It shows the range of difference even in a single building method. It's got example for the US, Australia and other place. Also been reading able Chinese methods too. More on that later.
It shows the range of difference even in a single building method. It's got example for the US, Australia and other place. Also been reading able Chinese methods too. More on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
