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.

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

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.

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 .

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.