Post-Carbon Future

Looking after the environment has been 'mainstream' since the 1970s, and yet we still have no electric cars or solar power stations in Australia. Not because we don't want it, those technologies have been viable for at least that long, but now that it's possible for every house to generate their own electricity with solar on their roof, and current generation electric cars use as much electricity to recharge as a toaster!—it's government and industry who don't want to clean up their act because they rely on us subsidising their thirst for electricity.

There's no corporate/government vision of a post-carbon Australia, because they're addicted to the status quo being the world's mine. Frankly it's not a good look, and not good for the humans' future, much less the environment.

When we start seeing being factored in the true savings from eliminating the carbon economy—reduced health bills because cities aren't bathed in exhaust fumes, for one—then you'll know we're getting serious. In the mean time, Zero Carbon Australia at least have the stones to promote some kind of vision.

Governments need to get over their coal and oil tax addiction, learn the lessons of countries who have going down the zero carbon path for decades, and tax what you don't want, say pollution, and don't tax what you do want, like jobs and profits. Maybe we'd better stop voting for the two faces of 'business as usual' and start voting for those with an eye on new jobs and new industries, instead of bleating about buggy-whip industries dying out.

Think solar. Pick two companies, Pure Energies or Solar City, who will pay you to put solar panels on your roof. How about Germany currently gets up to 32% of its electricity from renewables? Not for a sunshine rich country like Australia of course…

And if I were buying/leasing an electric car, right now, in Austalia, I'd be going for Blade, they've been shipping, not promising—for years, now. These little beauties will do anyone for a second car, and most for a first car. Seriously.

Lastly (it's been a while, forgive me), if you're tired of climate "skeptics" cherry picking weather data or quoting non-climate scientists to convince you we don't have a serious problem, jump on SkepticalScience or download their free fact sheet and stick it on your iPad, should the occasion arise. I'm totally skeptical of business and government lining up to milk extra profits/taxes and not actually do anything to improve the environment, but playing the 'is it real?' game only cheats us out of the big changes and opportunities ahead. Let's get rid of the carbon pollution and have a better world.

Growth and Globalism

Couple of 'reference' ABC Radio National 'Big Ideas' shows recently:

John Ralston Saul is probably the finest mind in history/politics at the moment. Grab anything you can by him.

My favourite book is 'The Unconscious Civilisation', "knowledge has not made us conscious. Instead, we have sought refuge in a world of illusion where language is cut off from reality". I liked the bit about politicians riding the coat tails of corporations which have the real power.

Saul's recent work is nicely previewed on 'John Ralston Saul and The Collapse of Globalism'. Listen to it twice (or read the transcript).

Listening to Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey is quite a mind expansion. If we want Growth and a Sustainable Future, get an idea of the scale of the task at 'Prosperity without growth?' I liked the bit about—in 50 years we not only have to stop carbon emissions, we need a society that actually takes carbon back out of the environment! I'm a little less extreme, but I like to look at it this way—if you're a public corporation, you have a duty to your shareholders to move your corporate activities into to the Green economy, or else.

While I'm at it, a couple of other notable Radio National shows:

Check out Saint Peter Garrett (or Commander Gram as he's known in UFO circles) caught out covering up Australia's oil spill. 'The spilling fields'. Sadly, this disaster dropped out of the news because it didn't spoil any beaches.

And if you don't believe the CIA was stirring up trouble and gaming Twitter after the recent Iranian elections, Oil, democracy and a CIA coup describes (among other things) how they actually paid people to fight in the streets in the 1950s.

Nuclear is off the table

Despite Australian Prime Minister's most recent rejection of nuclear power for Australia there is a meme going around here and internationally that Australia is considering nuclear power. I trust that the Prime Minister will stick to his word, despite internal and international pressures - "Our position is clear ... we have a position against nuclear power" and that - there are 'unresolved questions' about nuclear power.

The most recent report by the California Energy Commission states it bluntly - nuclear is more expensive than every renewable energy for power generation. But I'll let Miguel Mendonça, a guest on This Week In Energy explain it:

"I would just direct you to the California Energy Commission's 'Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation' in 2009, which says that the levelized cost of a nuclear power plant with the latest technology is the most expensive type of generation. It's more than every single renewable energy source per MWh. And I think the conversation should stop there.

That plant in Texas… having already had their cost estimate doubled originally, just was increased by another $4 billion and the city of I think it's Austin or maybe it's San Antonio which was an investor in that plant is considering pulling its investment out because they're not sure they want to go another $4 billion in for those two generators.

So the idea that nuclear is cheap is a total farce. My car is cheap when I've paid off the loan for it and that's why nuclear energy looks so cheap, but when it comes to building new generation, there's absolutely no reason we should consider using it. It's 2 to 3 times more expensive than other types of technology that we have, and that doesn't even include the fact that we're excusing the producers from any liability from accidents and from having to do anything with the waste."

So when you see figures quoting nuclear power as cheap, remember those figures exclude the cost to build the plants and any costs associated with the waste. Building new nuclear power plants is not an option, anywhere in the world. And that is… the end of the discussion.

References:

This Week In Energy Episode 7 Big or Small

California Energy Commission's report

South Texas Nuclear cost overruns

San Antonio considering withdrawing from nuclear power plant

CNN Money report on the state of nuclear power

Rudd's most recent rejection of nuclear

Touch Mac OS wipes the floor with Windows in 2010

iPad is here, and while I'm underwhelmed at the specs, I stand by all my comments about Apple's iPad revolutionising print media. Like tv, it's very nice at what it does, but not enough of what you want, so you buy the next model up. If it had a 16:9 screen, a Skype camera and a file system, there might have been a chance. The current screen gets you Star Trek in a window just 3" high. That's a lot of wasted space. Print this actual size PDF if you want to get the feel of it.

Pundits would have that there's not much difference between the Windows 7 user experience and the Mac OS X user experience. They would also have you believe modern computer OSes have nowhere to go in terms of dramatic improvement. They would not be paying attention. iPhone OS changed the world, just watch a proper Touch OS creep up through the Apple line, changing the computer user experience -forever-.

You've heard the rumours of the 15.4" real Mac OS X Mac Pad and also the 22" Touch iMac (from the only source to correctly predict iPad's 9.7" screen). I'm hoping for a REALLY busy year for Apple and some seriously sexy Touch enhancements to the Mac OS that will wipe the floor with Windoze and Microsoft. Having failed for a decade at a tablet OS, Microsoft would never recover. It would sink, never to be seen again!

Everyone, even Mac lovers enjoyed the MS Surface interface, but what are the odds of Microsoft, busy with the enterprise/Office/the cloud, implementing a touch OS for Windows? Less than zero?

And Apple looks on target to totally revolutionise the desktop and "notebook" user interface before year's end.

This could get interesting.

The Great Disruption

In the podcast of the century, Paul Gilding "explains why physics and biology have determined that our current model for economic growth is finished."

If you read around the edges of this site, you'll realise Paul Gilding is absolutely in tune with these ideas. He has been through the despair of "How are we going to get out of this mess?" and come out the other side, optimistic that the necessary changes are inevitable, that we have the technology already, and rather than feeling powerless, individual action is all that's necessary.

Listen to this podcast every day until you know it word for word. Then play it every day until you understand it. Then play it every day until you take action. Then play it every day because it just makes sense, and there's just not enough 'sense' in the world.

There's no need to riot in the streets. Don't bother lobbying corporations and governments to do what their customers don't want anyway (Paul's observation). You are the customer, if you change, they will change because they like your money/vote.

Let me add a few easy and practical suggestions:

• If you have the option, buy 'green power' from your electricity supplier. If you don't have the option, write to your electricity supplier and ask for 'green power'.
• Get your fruit and vegies from a 'farmer's market'.
• Go out of your way to use public transport. The more people that use it, the more services will be provided.
• If you want an electric car, a good one, write to your car manufacturer and let them know you're not buying a car until they make an 'electric' with the same performance as the current petrol model.

To paraphrase the podcast: We are the people we've been waiting for, so get to it and build a new world.

Refs

The Great Disruption letter (origin of the podcast speech, but the podcast is better)

Paul Gilding's site - if you only read one thing this year, this is it.

Background Briefing podcast - listen to this every day.

Let's talk 'Star Trek', seriously

A movie for everyone? Certainly that's the intention of the filmmakers. With writers from Lost and Transformers, I expected directionless pulp and unnecessary special effects, a kind of Star Trek for 11 year olds, and sadly, in this respect I was not disappointed.

It is also true that 'the franchise' is 're-imagined' in the least imaginative 'Hollywood' way. Why don't we make it an alternate reality? Batman just went and told a new story with no apologies. Yeah, and make Spock more human, then 'everyman' will be able to relate to him. The whole point of Spock was that he was 'alien' in every sense of the word. And make Kirk an 'angry young man' so his 'journey' can be more transformative (and unbelievable - what's wrong with ambitious, clever and humanitarian?). Uhura, she's a woman, let's make her a love interest. I'm not even going to go into 'for whom'. And let's model Starfleet on current U.S. military policy - 'we are merely peacekeepers' (after creating the war for our own financial gain, oops veered into the real world, sorry).

I could go on, but I like the film, despite this writers-meeting hell. The Roddenberry family were brave indeed to take no interest until the finished product, and against all this total misunderstanding of the concept of Star Trek and Gene's legacy, their trust has been rewarded.

What on earth could save such a misconceived project from oblivion? And I haven't even started on the plot holes. Like Lost and Transformers and some of J. J. Abrams better efforts, there is a wit and knowingness about Star Trek XI that shines through the lowest common denominator Hollywood makeover. The characters and friendships are 'real'. The 'situations' are hilarious. The concept of 'the cameo' really makes the film. One can only imagine how pissed Shatner must be. And last, but not least, is the pressure relief from the overabundance of pulp contrivances - the inside jokes and references back to (let's face it) Star Trek and many other science fiction greats. I particularly liked the Futurama joke.

So if you can stomach a Star Trek that takes the "Enterprise" series as canon, but the rest is up for grabs, I promise you will be rewarded. For even the most intelligent and thoughtful Trek lovers, there is something here for you. Well done J. J. Abrams and your crew. Mission accomplished.

The (genuine) iPod of books

Is Steve Jobs about to do it again? In one lifetime, the CEO of Apple has already revolutionised computers, music, film, mobile phones and now it looks like he's going to do it *all over again* for the book industry.

'Visionary' is already an understatement for the achievements of Steve Jobs. And bringing the publishing industry into the digital age may be his ultimate achievement and finest legacy. Certainly, these are the terms in which Steve Jobs thinks.

But what about the Kindle, I hear you say, Oprah Winfrey's "favorite new thing in the world"? There were many mp3 players on the market when Apple released the first iPod. Not necessarily the first, but it worked so much better than all the others. Design that goes more than skin deep. And today, it's a household word.

Did Amazon have a bet 'each way', when it somewhat surprisingly released an iPhone application for picking up your Kindle book on iPhone, where you left off reading it earlier?

BusinessWeek tells us that Apple is rumoured to be launching a 'media pad', the size of a Kindle, but with a bigger screen. Tech journalist Andy Ihnatko, already given a preview of a new Apple product in January has been dropping hints about truck loads of books being digitised on Apple's Cupertino campus for some kind of iTunes Book Store. All Things Digital reached the same conclusion, minus Amazon's bet each way, the implications for the book industry and the world in general, and Apple's 'killer app' - seamless integration of a Book Store.

Looks to me like Steve Jobs is going to do it again… and good luck to him.

Knowing Apple, the device will be useful for much more than just reading books and that will be the selling point. "Oh and by the way - it does books too."

What I like most about the Jobs approach, is that he's more interested in selling enabling devices and not trying to monopolise the content. I admire his Buddhist approach to business. A less enlightened 'visionary' might be tempted to grab the whole vertical market, including the content. Maybe that's another reason why Apple has 'fans' and other companies have customers.

Steve Jobs' return to Apple do-list

For Mac enthusiasts eagerly awaiting the return of Steve Jobs from medical leave, I present (my entry in the Maccast competition) the top 5 things on Steve Jobs' Do List upon his return to Apple:

• Blu-ray - check bag, see if it's still hurting
• Copy & Paste - cross that off my list, fussy users, I thought they'd never shut up about that
• NetBook - check with Interesting Ideas department, 'cause I got nothin'
• FireWire - OMG! I forgot FireWire on MacBooks and iPods? Who was watching my back? Why didn't somebody tell me? (remind me again in 12 months)
• Podcasters - call Adam, Ken, Victor and Michael and have a heart to heart with them, I'm only human, you know; call Ara, ask him to set up a Mini home theatre for me

If you don't get the references, you probably didn't need to read it. Hope you enjoyed it anyway??

The 'struggle' of the electric car

Australian governments are 'evaluating' a 4 seater completely electric car from Mitsubishi. And in a year or two's time, it might get the go ahead to be sold in Australia. That should give the business-as-usual luddites time to marshal objections and develop a counter plan.

Sure, the i MiEV has already passed 83 safety requirements (the usual reason for stopping electric vehicles). And it only costs a couple of dollars on an ordinary overnight domestic power point for a full charge (30 minutes on the speed charger), ready for 160 km of quiet, clean, kick-arse motoring (speed limited to 130km/h).

Even with the dirtiest coal power station at the other end, pollution is reduced by 70% compared with petrol cars. And Australia is the most urban country on the planet, with 50% of the population travelling less than 50 km per day, and 83% travelling less than 100 km per day. I'm not saying -everyone- needs an electric vehicle, but it could 'do the job' for quite a lot of Australians.

The Federal Transport Minister was brimming with praise for the i MiEV. Let's see if he backs it up with action, hastening its introduction to the Australian market place (like the Japanese government did).

I imagine the Federal government will be doing its sums over lost fuel tax revenue. That alone should stop electric cars dead. No government will willingly forego those billions. No need to make alternative arrangements or factor in health, environmental, noise etc. savings, just stick your heads in the sand, that's the way.

Not to mention the millions vested interest companies will spend, rather than change. No, -they- don't need to change, we'll suffer a lower quality of life, we'll do all the changing. Holden and Ford haven't made a profit in years, Federal taxpayers are subsidising these companies $200,000 a year per Australian worker to keep them going, and I'll bet the lifestyles of their top management haven't suffered.

The i MiEV is in production and goes on sale from the middle of this year, overseas.

To the vested interests I say "Let the i MiEV in. Nobody will buy it. You have nothing to worry about. We'll keep buying your filthy 20th century technology. No need for you to change."

In the mean time Mr Rudd, how about we start some new industries, just in case this green fad catches on? Let's start manufacturing lithium-ion batteries, electric motors and drive trains, get ahead of the game (maybe reduce the cost of the i MiEV) and quit whinging about all the old ancillary automotive industries decline. Now that's stimulus!

And while we're at it, lets only be a decade behind California in cleaning up the power generation end of the business, too. Australia has an abundance of solar, wind, hydro, thermal and tidal power generation resources. Let's at least try to keep up with the game there too, Mr Rudd. Or are we going to sit back and whinge about the death of the old economy? Stimulus again, Mr Rudd.

Refs
Federal Transport Minister
Mitsubishi i MiEV site
about the car
Test Drive
AutoBlogGreen
cnet and the downside

So, why blog? Saint Peter takes a dive

Does the world need another blog? Well, I obviously think so. Things need to be said and no one else is saying them. New approaches are required and every voice counts.

When I first decided to blog (a year ago), I thought it would be all tech, fun and gentle philosophical rants. Arguably worthwhile, and therefore worth the bits and anyone's time to read them. But I didn't do anything about it. Not enough gravitas? Not enough stress to make tech seem worth blogging about? I don't know really.

I had some vague notion that more attention needed to be paid to political shenanigans of the most shameful kind, and politics is both important and of interest to me. Thinking back now, it was the hero of a generation and anti-nuclear activist approving nuclear dumps in the remote Australian outback (another cause he championed so strongly) that made me think, "Something needs to be said. More attention must be paid."

Journalists can only do so much, sneak the facts in at the bottom of the page and hope someone notices. The rest is up to us.

So the light weight tech blog gains a sharper edge. And while politicians front for this kind of behaviour, they'll make my front page. I promise iPhone wish-lists and rants about electric cars, LED lighting and Blu-ray on the Mac, but for now - attention must be paid.

Which brings me to Saint Peter Garrett's fall from grace. Minister approves nuclear dumps. That pretty much sells out every cause the afore mentioned Saint Peter ever championed - environment, outback, people and the planet. Nice one.

Keep up the charity concerts. Looks like raising awareness is going to achieve more than actually being the Australian Federal Environment Minister.

"Hey, Saint Peter. It really feels like hell." - Vanda and Young 1977

At first I took it to be a good sign that the 'former' radical, now Environment Minister was denied the portfolios of Water and Global Warming. Maybe 'business as usual' didn't trust him and there was indeed, hope for change.

Take notice of what people do, not what they say. I'm sure I'll be building up quite a file on this subject. Stay tuned.

U.S. Forces give the nod after all eh? It goes to show, don't vote for either party, there really is no difference - vote independent.

Asylum Seeker Coincidence

Kevin Rudd is making George Bush and John Howard look like amateurs. And so far, the government appears blameless. Let's see how long that lasts.

Let me join the dots for you - Australian politicians attend a conference on people smuggling, spectacular asylum seeker incident blamed on asylum seekers, turns out claims asylum seekers set their own boat on fire were not substantiated and the Navy commander in charge of the vessel saw no such thing.

Australian governments have a long history of abusing powerless asylum seekers for political gain.

Sadly, nothing has changed. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." Pete Townshend 1971

The divide and conquer talkback stooges are having a field day, so check out Andrew Bartlett at Crikey for a more reasoned discussion.

edit: long needed addendum

You have to ask yourself, what "Australia's people smuggling disruption program" actually means. This is what a former Australian diplomat has to say .

think about it

Whenever you see injustice, inequity, or something that just doesn't seem logical, you're not looking in the right place. Follow the money. Ask yourself, "Who benefits?"

Australian National Broadband Network, a new approach required

The Australian Federal Government has announced an ambitious broadband upgrade plan.

The plan features fibre-to-the-home, and internet speeds of 100 Mb/s, which sounds good, until you consider it will take 8 years to implement. I only hope the specs increase as the programme progresses. But that's not what we're concerning ourselves with here.

The Federal Government called for tenders to build the proposed network. The privileged, incumbent, formerly government owned telco, Telstra submitted a non-compliant bid - part of the ongoing political argy-bargy as Telstra asserts its privately owned status with the former owner. The upshot though, was that Telstra was excluded from the rest of the process.

Apparently none of the other tendering consortia came up with a sufficiently visionary proposal either, so the Federal Government has decided to implement their vision in partnership with private industry. This could potentially break Telstra's network monopoly and in some quarters, is seen as the first truly competitive network move since the government owned telco was privatised and a major private competitor was invited to attempt to compete. As an aside, that private competitor, Optus is now owned by the Singapore government and don't we look like a right bunch of chumps.

As for Telstra, the government appears to have opened the door for Telstra to return to the process, as the major "private" investor. The government has signalled that they will legislate to split off Telstra's wholesale business anyway, separating the incumbent network (monopoly) from Telstra's sales and marketing business. We just need to wait for Telstra to read the writing on the wall and, as the biggest telecommunications player in the country, formulate a strategy to regain as much of their former market dominance as possible. Sigh.

The bid process proved the other telcos can't collectively mount a credible alternative. You'd think every other telecommunications business would set aside their differences and see this as the last-chance to break the Telstra monopoly. Gods forbid every telco in the country join together to build a decent network from which all could prosper. More about the failure of both public and private provision of utilities, later.

My technical gripes aside, the Government's vision appears to exceed all the player's capacity, which is as it should be. The problem is that the Australian public will be investing in a network that private enterprise doesn't have the vision to attempt, but then that network will be sold/handed to private enterprise to 'maintain' into the future.

This might be a concession to current (demonstrably failed) economic philosophies so that the project can proceed, but isn't it time Australians demanded our governments stop this reckless abandonment of public utilities (power, water, communications, roads, etc)?

Hopefully, when the NBN is sold in 5 years time, no telco will be able to afford the buying price.

I think another model is required for provision of public utilities. Traditionally in Australia, governments provided and managed such services, but their recent behaviour, either selling utilities off to companies unable to maintain them adequately, but dramatically increasing prices to the consumer; or failing to maintain and grow utilities themselves (no new roads built in my home state, which is larger than Texas, for 10 years) disqualifies govenments from any future role in managing public infrastructure.

What is needed is a model for public utilities to be owned and operated by non-profit, non-government, non-private, organisations. Maybe, as the dust settles on the failure of capitalism, and the current economic shake-up, a new model will emerge…

Something where the basic service is available (to anyone) from the non-profit, and government/private corporations (I see no distinction anymore) scramble to value-add for those who want more.

Let corporations pay a proper wholesale price, which includes adequate maintenance and development of the infrastructure, instead of the current (no infrastructure maintenance/growth for 10 years) model which was both false-economy and crippled Australian economic competitiveness.