The good news is that in terms of reducing our use of town water, this project is definitely meeting its objectives! We've done piles of washing and started flushing the loo again with wild abandon. I even hosed off the concrete along the back of the house after doing some top-dressing of the lawn. With the weather we've been having lately (lots of showers) we've been unable to get the water level more than about 1200L below capacity, and as of this morning the tanks were full again. Makes me wish there was some way to use that water for bathing as well.
However... all this water abundance has come at the cost of increased electrical consumption. Of course I knew that some electricity would be necessary to power the pump, but I've discovered two ways in which our setup is far from optimal.
First, the pressure switch. That blue gizmo on top of the pump which monitors the pressure and decides whether the pump needs to be running or not. Courtesy of my power meter I have discovered that the cost of monitoring the pressure is apparently about 15W continuous power consumption, or the equivalent of one rather bright CF bulb shining 24x7. In most homes that would be considered negligible, but in my home that's slightly more than a 5% increase in our average daily energy use.
The obvious solution to problems of that sort is simply to switch off the device when it's not needed. And sure, the pump needs an appropriate switched outlet to plug it into. But that would only solve part of the problem.
Three out of the four taps fed by the pump are used in such a way that it makes sense to switch on the pump before use and switch it off again afterwards - doing a load of washing, filling the tub or a bucket, using the hose and so on. The toilet, though, is a different matter.
With a toilet you need the water to flow into the cistern after your, um, "activity" is completed, and then only for a relatively short time. Can you imagine being required to flush, wash hands, walk to the laundry, flick the switch on, wait 30 seconds then flick the switch off again? Can you imagine teaching young children to do that? No, a simple switch is not going to suffice here.
The next most obvious suggestion is to install a second switch in the toilet, wired up in a 2-way configuration like many light fixtures are - such that flicking either switch up or down will change the on/off status of the light, or pump in this case. It would alleviate the walking part of the problem, but you'd still be left with the waiting.
What I'm hoping to do is a variation on that idea using a logical "OR" operation and a time delay switch. This switch is normally in the "off" state. When you push it in, power is allowed to flow but only for a minute or so until the spring-loaded mechanism returns to its initial position. So you push one button on the cistern to flush the toilet and then another button on the wall to refill the cistern, then you walk away (to wash your hands, of course). Either the laundry switch OR the toilet time delay switch can be independently activated to provide power to the pump as required.
Actually both of those switches will feed into the exterior switched socket that the pump is plugged into, so the correct logical expression is: (laundry OR toilet switch turned on) AND (external switch turned on) -> (a powered pump).
I foolishly bought all three switches today without first asking about the prices. Total cost $106. Could have saved twenty bucks if I hadn't asked for the laundry switch to have one of those little red lights in it to show when it's turned on. But anyway...
At current prices of 21.455 cents per kWh (15.455c regulated tariff 11 plus 6c GreenSwitch renewable energy premium) I'm going to have to have the pump switched OFF for about 33 thousand hours - nearly four years! - to recover the cost of the switches alone. But then I'm still predicting that energy costs will rise rapidly over time, and hopefully these switches will be in use for a long time after they've paid back their cost.
The moral of the story is to carefully check the electrical requirements of the equipment you're installing in a bid to save water. Thus endeth part 2. Next time I'll look at the other, far more important aspect of the energy efficiency equation when it comes to pumping water around: the pipes.
(Got any ideas about how to design a really efficient tank/pump system for home? Please share in the comments.)
Saturday 29 December 2007
Pipes and Pumps, part 1
Can you think of a more boring-sounding subject? There wouldn't be too many, but if you care about energy and water efficiency then there are some very important things to know about pipes and pumps. As with many lessons in life, I learned these things shortly after the precise moment when it would have been most helpful to know them.
The context is, of course, that having installed tanks to capture the rain that falls on my roof I needed some way to get that water into my laundry and toilet in order to reduce my consumption of externally-supplied water. In this time and place carrying water in buckets is not an acceptable solution. Pipes, valves and a pump would be required. In this post I'll show you the solution we installed.
As I've mentioned more than once, our two tanks are situated one at each end of our house and are connected by a 25mm plastic pipe at ground level. That pipe has two functions: it allows the water level to rise evenly in both tanks regardless of how much water flows through their respective downpipes, and because it runs straight past the laundry it allows water to be drawn evenly from both tanks through a T piece inserted at the appropriate point. So far so good.
Knowing my limits, I paid a professional to supply and install the rest of the solution. We had a brief discussion about my requirements, agreed to use a pump at the low end of the price/performance curve and arranged to install four taps: one on the outside laundry wall adjacent to the pump, two just inside the laundry for the tub and the washing machine and the fourth a few meters along and through the wall for the toilet.
Stop! Camera time. In this first image you can see the inlet (low foreground) going into the pump body (red). On top of the pump is the electric pressure switch (blue) which turns on the pump whenever the outlet pressure drops below a preset level. The water flows upwards through the pressure switch and out the top.
Here you can see the new pipework (black) going up the wall to the new tap (left) and still further up then through the wall into the laundry.
Next, a shot inside the laundry with the double tap arrangement for the tub and washing machine.
Finally, our modified toilet. My original plan was to have a second tap in the toilet just as we have in the laundry so that we can connect the cistern to the appropriate one as required. The bloke we hired to do the installation explained that council regulations wouldn't allow it - something about making it too difficult for the elderly or the disabled to ensure reliable toilet operation - and so we now have a permanent dual-float configuration where we merely need to turn on the appropriate tap. The tap (and float) on the left control the existing mains water supply while the parts on the right take water from the pump.
Now I shall be the first to admit that, overall, this isn't a "pretty" job - because that really wasn't a goal. The pump gets hidden under a plastic cover that's about the same colour as the concrete, the laundry is destined for eventual renovations anyway and the whole lot is down the back side of the house where nobody goes looking for aesthetic satisfaction.
So that's what it looks like. In the next post I'll go into how well it works.
The context is, of course, that having installed tanks to capture the rain that falls on my roof I needed some way to get that water into my laundry and toilet in order to reduce my consumption of externally-supplied water. In this time and place carrying water in buckets is not an acceptable solution. Pipes, valves and a pump would be required. In this post I'll show you the solution we installed.
As I've mentioned more than once, our two tanks are situated one at each end of our house and are connected by a 25mm plastic pipe at ground level. That pipe has two functions: it allows the water level to rise evenly in both tanks regardless of how much water flows through their respective downpipes, and because it runs straight past the laundry it allows water to be drawn evenly from both tanks through a T piece inserted at the appropriate point. So far so good.
Knowing my limits, I paid a professional to supply and install the rest of the solution. We had a brief discussion about my requirements, agreed to use a pump at the low end of the price/performance curve and arranged to install four taps: one on the outside laundry wall adjacent to the pump, two just inside the laundry for the tub and the washing machine and the fourth a few meters along and through the wall for the toilet.
Stop! Camera time. In this first image you can see the inlet (low foreground) going into the pump body (red). On top of the pump is the electric pressure switch (blue) which turns on the pump whenever the outlet pressure drops below a preset level. The water flows upwards through the pressure switch and out the top.
Here you can see the new pipework (black) going up the wall to the new tap (left) and still further up then through the wall into the laundry.
Next, a shot inside the laundry with the double tap arrangement for the tub and washing machine.
Finally, our modified toilet. My original plan was to have a second tap in the toilet just as we have in the laundry so that we can connect the cistern to the appropriate one as required. The bloke we hired to do the installation explained that council regulations wouldn't allow it - something about making it too difficult for the elderly or the disabled to ensure reliable toilet operation - and so we now have a permanent dual-float configuration where we merely need to turn on the appropriate tap. The tap (and float) on the left control the existing mains water supply while the parts on the right take water from the pump.
Now I shall be the first to admit that, overall, this isn't a "pretty" job - because that really wasn't a goal. The pump gets hidden under a plastic cover that's about the same colour as the concrete, the laundry is destined for eventual renovations anyway and the whole lot is down the back side of the house where nobody goes looking for aesthetic satisfaction.
So that's what it looks like. In the next post I'll go into how well it works.
Friday 28 December 2007
It's not easy being Green (Powered)
In the past I've sung the praises of GreenSwitch as an easy and relatively economical way to source renewable energy for your household's consumption while investing in reputable Australian renewable energy projects. That's still the case, but less so than it used to be: GreenSwitch no longer allows transactions less than $75 in value. My own requirements for the previous quarter only come to about two thirds of that, so they wouldn't let me buy.
For anybody in South-East Queensland, be aware that our major electricity retailers, AGL and Origin Energy, currently don't offer 100% certified GreenPower plans to Qld customers. I can't get a straight answer out of them as to why that's so and what they are currently able to offer is pretty pathetic. It's a pity though, because their 5.5c/kWh premium is now a fraction cheaper than GreenSwitch, which has risen to 6c/kWh.
If you really want less than 1250kWh of 100% GreenPower and you want it now, try ClimateFriendly for around 6.5c/kWh.
I could hold on for the next quarterly bill and buy six months worth of green energy in one go... except that I'm predicting continually increasing energy prices. Will ponder.
For anybody in South-East Queensland, be aware that our major electricity retailers, AGL and Origin Energy, currently don't offer 100% certified GreenPower plans to Qld customers. I can't get a straight answer out of them as to why that's so and what they are currently able to offer is pretty pathetic. It's a pity though, because their 5.5c/kWh premium is now a fraction cheaper than GreenSwitch, which has risen to 6c/kWh.
If you really want less than 1250kWh of 100% GreenPower and you want it now, try ClimateFriendly for around 6.5c/kWh.
I could hold on for the next quarterly bill and buy six months worth of green energy in one go... except that I'm predicting continually increasing energy prices. Will ponder.
Stats Update (Updated)
I last read my electricity and water meters 37 days ago. Some interesting things have happened between then and now including the installation of the electric pump that enables us to use captured rainwater in our washing machine and toilet. There'll be a separate post about the pump and related matters, but I have been very curious about how much impact that system would have on our consumption of external energy and water.
Today's reading won't give the whole story. For one thing, I can't recall exactly when the pump was installed but I'm pretty sure it was after that last reading. And our whole family went away for a week's holiday during the period so our consumption was artificially low during that time - I'll do some math to compensate for it but even that won't be accurate because the fridge was running for the week and I don't know how much power it would have used when nobody was opening it.
And speaking of the fridge... it's not well. Either it has a blocked drainage channel or leaking door seals. There's too much Christmas food in it to try and fix the problem right now but I wouldn't be surprised if it's using more power than usual. (Update: only hours after I posted that, the electrical safety switch in our fuse box tripped. The fridge was the culprit - all that water building up must have short-circuited something. Emptied it out and pulled it apart a bit, found the decomposing remains of some corn kernels blocking the condensation drainage pipe. Cleaned, reassembled, tested, OK now.)
So then: Tariff 11, the standard domestic electricity supply. Over 37 days we used 265kWh, averaging about 7.15kWh per day. (Our average for the 94 days to 10 Dec, which includes our week away, was almost exactly 7kWh.) Compensating for our time away brings the figure to more like 8.8kWh per day, a fairly significant increase. I'll have to do some work here to understand where the extra power is being used. Probably I'll connect the fridge and the pump to my two power meters and find out precisely how much of a contribution they're each making.
Next up is Tariff 31: Night Rate. I'm including this one just for comparison, because since the installation of our solar water heater we've switched to a different tariff. But energy is energy, and on this bill we see that over 21 days we used 90kWh. This included a few days where we had no hot water system at all and then a few more after the solar system was installed but before the electricity company came to reconfigure our meter for the other tariff.
Tariff 33, "Controlled Supply", works similarly to the night rate system except that it's available for 16 hours each day instead of just 8. I decided that made more sense for a hot water booster because we'd likely need it in the late afternoons and evenings when night rate supply would still be unavailable. Our total consumption over the 73 days covered on the bill was...
2kWh. That's not per day, that's total. We had to flick it on for an hour or so sometime in October if I recall correctly. It hasn't been on since, so of course the consumption over the past 37 days is a flat zero. I love my solar hot water system.
OK, so on to the water. I want to put this into perspective.
For the previous 39 days (that is, prior to the last time I read the meter) we had averaged 381L per day. For the 37 days just ended our daily average is 200L per day!
Even taking out the week we weren't here gives a figure of 247L per day. Again this is something that will need some monitoring during the coming weeks to work out our ongoing rate of consumption but I'm pretty pleased about that. Tank water is now being used for all outside requirements, all laundry, and most of our toilet flushing. The Shower Saver would account for a sizeable reduction in mains water use as well.
Today's reading won't give the whole story. For one thing, I can't recall exactly when the pump was installed but I'm pretty sure it was after that last reading. And our whole family went away for a week's holiday during the period so our consumption was artificially low during that time - I'll do some math to compensate for it but even that won't be accurate because the fridge was running for the week and I don't know how much power it would have used when nobody was opening it.
And speaking of the fridge... it's not well. Either it has a blocked drainage channel or leaking door seals. There's too much Christmas food in it to try and fix the problem right now but I wouldn't be surprised if it's using more power than usual. (Update: only hours after I posted that, the electrical safety switch in our fuse box tripped. The fridge was the culprit - all that water building up must have short-circuited something. Emptied it out and pulled it apart a bit, found the decomposing remains of some corn kernels blocking the condensation drainage pipe. Cleaned, reassembled, tested, OK now.)
So then: Tariff 11, the standard domestic electricity supply. Over 37 days we used 265kWh, averaging about 7.15kWh per day. (Our average for the 94 days to 10 Dec, which includes our week away, was almost exactly 7kWh.) Compensating for our time away brings the figure to more like 8.8kWh per day, a fairly significant increase. I'll have to do some work here to understand where the extra power is being used. Probably I'll connect the fridge and the pump to my two power meters and find out precisely how much of a contribution they're each making.
Next up is Tariff 31: Night Rate. I'm including this one just for comparison, because since the installation of our solar water heater we've switched to a different tariff. But energy is energy, and on this bill we see that over 21 days we used 90kWh. This included a few days where we had no hot water system at all and then a few more after the solar system was installed but before the electricity company came to reconfigure our meter for the other tariff.
Tariff 33, "Controlled Supply", works similarly to the night rate system except that it's available for 16 hours each day instead of just 8. I decided that made more sense for a hot water booster because we'd likely need it in the late afternoons and evenings when night rate supply would still be unavailable. Our total consumption over the 73 days covered on the bill was...
2kWh. That's not per day, that's total. We had to flick it on for an hour or so sometime in October if I recall correctly. It hasn't been on since, so of course the consumption over the past 37 days is a flat zero. I love my solar hot water system.
OK, so on to the water. I want to put this into perspective.
For the previous 39 days (that is, prior to the last time I read the meter) we had averaged 381L per day. For the 37 days just ended our daily average is 200L per day!
Even taking out the week we weren't here gives a figure of 247L per day. Again this is something that will need some monitoring during the coming weeks to work out our ongoing rate of consumption but I'm pretty pleased about that. Tank water is now being used for all outside requirements, all laundry, and most of our toilet flushing. The Shower Saver would account for a sizeable reduction in mains water use as well.
A season for everything, even blogging
Last post November 18th. Hmm.
When I started this blog, I made a point of it being for "you". "You" turned out to be not that interested, or perhaps just unaware that I was doing it. Such is the world of amateur blogging as far as I can tell, and that's OK. It seems that most amateur blogging tends to be a personal, cathartic thing - certainly that's been the case for me even though I didn't expect it to be so.
Things may remain quiet around here for a while, apart from a couple of quick updates I'm thinking of posting since I'm sitting here anyway. January will continue to be really busy for me at work and the family has to take priority over blogging. If anybody has any ideas for a post or any questions about anything, drop me a line in the comments.
Cheers,
Terry
When I started this blog, I made a point of it being for "you". "You" turned out to be not that interested, or perhaps just unaware that I was doing it. Such is the world of amateur blogging as far as I can tell, and that's OK. It seems that most amateur blogging tends to be a personal, cathartic thing - certainly that's been the case for me even though I didn't expect it to be so.
Things may remain quiet around here for a while, apart from a couple of quick updates I'm thinking of posting since I'm sitting here anyway. January will continue to be really busy for me at work and the family has to take priority over blogging. If anybody has any ideas for a post or any questions about anything, drop me a line in the comments.
Cheers,
Terry
Sunday 18 November 2007
Found! Low cost 240V power meter.
I enjoyed using a borrowed Centameter a while back to get a feel for our household power usage patterns. But there were a few reasons why I haven't gone out and bought one for myself.
1. It wasn't exactly inexpensive.
2. It could only show you your overall power consumption, which I can find out by reading meters anyway.
3. It wasn't sensitive enough to be very useful for an energy-efficient household like ours.
In the US everybody talks about the Kill-A-Watt. But the US electrical grid runs at 110V compared to Australia's 240V system, and I haven't been able to find a local equivalent.
Until now. At under forty bucks, I'll be picking one up tomorrow.
1. It wasn't exactly inexpensive.
2. It could only show you your overall power consumption, which I can find out by reading meters anyway.
3. It wasn't sensitive enough to be very useful for an energy-efficient household like ours.
In the US everybody talks about the Kill-A-Watt. But the US electrical grid runs at 110V compared to Australia's 240V system, and I haven't been able to find a local equivalent.
Until now. At under forty bucks, I'll be picking one up tomorrow.
Global Issues, Local Action!
I just received this on a mailing list:
Lots of things I love about this:
- High profile, high quality production focusing on sustainability
- We now have State Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (an inspired combination!)
- Local council support from the Morningside Ward Livability Committee
- Business engagement (the cinema complex)
- Fund raising for local climate change initiatives
What's more, the message came to me via a completely different political group, which demonstrates unity across a broad spectrum of parties, groups and levels of government.
I've been looking for an opportunity to hear and perhaps speak with Andrew McNamara, recently appointed as the Minister for SCCI as noted above. I'll be trying to make the time to get across the river and participate in this event. If you're reading this in Brisbane, please spread the word.
Lots of things I love about this:
- High profile, high quality production focusing on sustainability
- We now have State Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (an inspired combination!)
- Local council support from the Morningside Ward Livability Committee
- Business engagement (the cinema complex)
- Fund raising for local climate change initiatives
What's more, the message came to me via a completely different political group, which demonstrates unity across a broad spectrum of parties, groups and levels of government.
I've been looking for an opportunity to hear and perhaps speak with Andrew McNamara, recently appointed as the Minister for SCCI as noted above. I'll be trying to make the time to get across the river and participate in this event. If you're reading this in Brisbane, please spread the word.
Tuesday 13 November 2007
Hope for Hydrogen as a Fuel?
Ages ago I posted something about hydrogen, with the basic point being made that hydrogen is not an energy source but an energy carrier and that the fundamental problem with the idea of using hydrogen to power cars etc is that you have to put more energy into making it than you can get out of burning it.
Today though, there is some positive news. Researchers have been able to harness natural microbial action (ie bacteria which munch on organic matter and fart hydrogen instead of methane) and give the process a major efficiency boost with the addition of a small amount of electricity. The result was that the hydrogen released carried between two and six times as much energy as the electricity they had to put in to the system. (The rest of the energy was originally in the organic matter, captured from the Sun.)
At first glance this is potentially a great result, especially compared with biofuels as we know them today which apparently consume more fuel in their production than they provide as the end product. Microbes could munch on all kinds of organic waste and release energy-carrying hydrogen for us to utilise. The process has a much higher efficiency, potentially transforming what was originally solar energy into something we can use in cars.
Next steps: make the process a lot faster. At the moment it's too slow to be useful on any practical scale. But at least it's some positive news.
Today though, there is some positive news. Researchers have been able to harness natural microbial action (ie bacteria which munch on organic matter and fart hydrogen instead of methane) and give the process a major efficiency boost with the addition of a small amount of electricity. The result was that the hydrogen released carried between two and six times as much energy as the electricity they had to put in to the system. (The rest of the energy was originally in the organic matter, captured from the Sun.)
At first glance this is potentially a great result, especially compared with biofuels as we know them today which apparently consume more fuel in their production than they provide as the end product. Microbes could munch on all kinds of organic waste and release energy-carrying hydrogen for us to utilise. The process has a much higher efficiency, potentially transforming what was originally solar energy into something we can use in cars.
Next steps: make the process a lot faster. At the moment it's too slow to be useful on any practical scale. But at least it's some positive news.
Monday 12 November 2007
Political Quotes
"You show me pollution and I will show you people who are not paying their own way, people who are stealing from the public, people who are getting the public to pay their costs of production. All environmental pollution is a subsidy."— Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
"The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around."—Gaylord Nelson
"The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around."—Gaylord Nelson
Top Aussie: "Carbon-free economy" by 2050
From the ABC:
Wake up, Australia, before the Great Barrier Reef and Bondi Beach become nothing more than stories we tell our grandkids. That is if society survives long enough for us to have grandkids.
Whatever you think about the economy or health or education, the most important issues this election are climate change and sustainability. Please vote for the long term, not just the next term.
The Australian of the Year [Professor Tim Flannery] has told an energy conference in Sydney that climate change is occurring more quickly than at first thought and time is running out to make substantial emission reductions... "what that really means is that four decades from now we have to be living in a carbon-free economy."
Wake up, Australia, before the Great Barrier Reef and Bondi Beach become nothing more than stories we tell our grandkids. That is if society survives long enough for us to have grandkids.
Whatever you think about the economy or health or education, the most important issues this election are climate change and sustainability. Please vote for the long term, not just the next term.
Water under control
A couple of weeks back I was shocked to see that over a ten day period our water use had shot up to 507L per day, on average. Since then we've renewed our vigilance and made a real effort to get water use back down to where it had been.
The results are satisfying. For the two weeks ending this morning our average consumption is back down to 320L per day, which is slightly better than where we were tracking before.
Helping the cause is our new Shower Saver. I can't imagine using it much in winter, but what a brilliant idea this is. Every shower should have one.
Also, our water tanks are full and overflowing! With all the recent rain there's not been much need for outdoor water use, so I'm eagerly awaiting a call from a mob to come and quote on installing a pump and some internal taps for the toilet and washing machine. I'm really looking forward to seeing how low our mains water consumption can go once those are hooked up.
The results are satisfying. For the two weeks ending this morning our average consumption is back down to 320L per day, which is slightly better than where we were tracking before.
Helping the cause is our new Shower Saver. I can't imagine using it much in winter, but what a brilliant idea this is. Every shower should have one.
Also, our water tanks are full and overflowing! With all the recent rain there's not been much need for outdoor water use, so I'm eagerly awaiting a call from a mob to come and quote on installing a pump and some internal taps for the toilet and washing machine. I'm really looking forward to seeing how low our mains water consumption can go once those are hooked up.
Sunday 4 November 2007
Fear, and its banishment
It's quiet here tonight. Hot. The air is heavy, humid and still. Michelle has suffered in the heat today and, having had little rest for the past day or two due to an unsettled infant, she took the opportunity to retreat to our air-conditioned bedroom around 6:30 when Asha finally went off to sleep herself.
I helped the other two kids peacefully through dinner, teeth brushing, stories and bed time. Now it's just me in a house so quiet I can distinctly hear the clock ticking in the dining room a dozen or more meters away. So you'd think I'd be feeling reasonably relaxed. A quiet summer-ish evening, alone with nothing much required of me. Perhaps time to read a book, listen to some music, surf the net. But inside I'm pretty tightly wound.
With my family all sleeping there's nothing much to distract me, and the knot of fear that's gradually developed over the past couple of years is combining with general weariness and the oppressive heat to produce a kind of heavy feeling in my stomach and a tension through my whole being.
It may be that I'm particularly vulnerable to fear, having lived for my first 30 years with a deep conviction in the absolute power and infinite love of an almighty God and then suddenly, this year, having to learn to cope without that psychological refuge after my faith simply shattered. But in a curious kind of way, my unanticipated unbelief highlighted and reinforced many of the values and principles which I'd previously justified on the basis of a moral God. In the end it sort of came down to a conscious choice to live and to devote my own life to the benefit of all life, though first and foremost to my children.
So it is that I find the state of the world today deeply terrifying. My own perspective on the size of the inhabitable universe has been dramatically reduced: I used to believe in an immortal soul and a boundless existence in a spiritual plane, but now there is simply Earth and everything that lives upon it.
For all practical purposes, the entire living universe is here, now, in an incredibly thin shell wrapped around an otherwise unremarkable 4 billion year old rocky planet. Humanity's influence within that tiny universe has grown to become powerful, pervasive and almost completely unchecked. We literally have the ability to destroy the world, to cause a mass extinction such as has required the force of an asteroid or an epic ice age in aeons past. The trouble is we are at serious risk of actually doing this as a result of too much power and too little intelligence.
When I type "power" there I mean that in the literal, physical sense. Homo Sapiens dominates this planet because we discovered how to harness sources of energy and apply them for our own immediate, personal benefit. Ironically it's our relative intelligence compared to other species which gave us this competitive edge. Unfortunately we have been insufficiently smart when it comes to understanding the long term and widespread consequences of our actions. Our perspective is too limited in both time and space. And so we have come through countless multiplying generations, burning wood, burning coal, burning oil, burning gas, as disruptive to the millions-years-old patterns of energy flow from Sun to storage as a sharp pin is to the steady state of a blown-up balloon. With this explosion of unexpected energy input, humanity has devastated the finely balanced, self-sustaining systems of life on the planet that gave it birth.
It's so hard to find any good news, any hope in all of this. If we continue down this path unchecked then (whether you believe that human activity is causing climate change or not) disaster is unavoidable. It's small comfort that one particular "check" is just starting to make itself felt - Peak Oil might put a stop to humanity's expansion in time to save the biosphere from total destruction, but so dependent have we become on energy derived from burning things that it might just about put a stop to humanity as well.
So here I am, keenly aware of the loss of a deity, the fragility of life, the distress of the planet, the stupidity and the power of my own species, and the three precious children sleeping peacefully in my care. How could I not be afraid?
---
I almost left it at that, but I think a short post-script is in order.
Fear should probably be considered a friend rather than a foe. What happens to the fearless? They do unwise things. They get hurt. They die when they could otherwise have lived. When it's both timely and appropriate, fear is an emotional signal that can help you to minimise or avoid a bad outcome.
Fear isn't always good though. Too much fear is crippling. Misplaced fear is usually counter-productive. And fear that hits you too late to allow you to escape trouble is just bad news.
I'm pretty much convinced that my own fear for the future is appropriate, but there's a lot of uncertainty about whether it's too late. But for now we're all alive and I can't see what else to do but to try and apply what energy and intelligence we do have towards avoiding catastrophe.
And in typing that I have had a sudden flash of inspiration for the world of 2050. It is my desire to build a world where children and parents can both sleep peacefully in the knowledge that the world is well and life will indeed go on. I had that once. If I'm lucky I may experience it again one day, but regardless it sounds like a bloody good thing to word towards.
Goodnight for now.
I helped the other two kids peacefully through dinner, teeth brushing, stories and bed time. Now it's just me in a house so quiet I can distinctly hear the clock ticking in the dining room a dozen or more meters away. So you'd think I'd be feeling reasonably relaxed. A quiet summer-ish evening, alone with nothing much required of me. Perhaps time to read a book, listen to some music, surf the net. But inside I'm pretty tightly wound.
With my family all sleeping there's nothing much to distract me, and the knot of fear that's gradually developed over the past couple of years is combining with general weariness and the oppressive heat to produce a kind of heavy feeling in my stomach and a tension through my whole being.
It may be that I'm particularly vulnerable to fear, having lived for my first 30 years with a deep conviction in the absolute power and infinite love of an almighty God and then suddenly, this year, having to learn to cope without that psychological refuge after my faith simply shattered. But in a curious kind of way, my unanticipated unbelief highlighted and reinforced many of the values and principles which I'd previously justified on the basis of a moral God. In the end it sort of came down to a conscious choice to live and to devote my own life to the benefit of all life, though first and foremost to my children.
So it is that I find the state of the world today deeply terrifying. My own perspective on the size of the inhabitable universe has been dramatically reduced: I used to believe in an immortal soul and a boundless existence in a spiritual plane, but now there is simply Earth and everything that lives upon it.
For all practical purposes, the entire living universe is here, now, in an incredibly thin shell wrapped around an otherwise unremarkable 4 billion year old rocky planet. Humanity's influence within that tiny universe has grown to become powerful, pervasive and almost completely unchecked. We literally have the ability to destroy the world, to cause a mass extinction such as has required the force of an asteroid or an epic ice age in aeons past. The trouble is we are at serious risk of actually doing this as a result of too much power and too little intelligence.
When I type "power" there I mean that in the literal, physical sense. Homo Sapiens dominates this planet because we discovered how to harness sources of energy and apply them for our own immediate, personal benefit. Ironically it's our relative intelligence compared to other species which gave us this competitive edge. Unfortunately we have been insufficiently smart when it comes to understanding the long term and widespread consequences of our actions. Our perspective is too limited in both time and space. And so we have come through countless multiplying generations, burning wood, burning coal, burning oil, burning gas, as disruptive to the millions-years-old patterns of energy flow from Sun to storage as a sharp pin is to the steady state of a blown-up balloon. With this explosion of unexpected energy input, humanity has devastated the finely balanced, self-sustaining systems of life on the planet that gave it birth.
It's so hard to find any good news, any hope in all of this. If we continue down this path unchecked then (whether you believe that human activity is causing climate change or not) disaster is unavoidable. It's small comfort that one particular "check" is just starting to make itself felt - Peak Oil might put a stop to humanity's expansion in time to save the biosphere from total destruction, but so dependent have we become on energy derived from burning things that it might just about put a stop to humanity as well.
So here I am, keenly aware of the loss of a deity, the fragility of life, the distress of the planet, the stupidity and the power of my own species, and the three precious children sleeping peacefully in my care. How could I not be afraid?
---
I almost left it at that, but I think a short post-script is in order.
Fear should probably be considered a friend rather than a foe. What happens to the fearless? They do unwise things. They get hurt. They die when they could otherwise have lived. When it's both timely and appropriate, fear is an emotional signal that can help you to minimise or avoid a bad outcome.
Fear isn't always good though. Too much fear is crippling. Misplaced fear is usually counter-productive. And fear that hits you too late to allow you to escape trouble is just bad news.
I'm pretty much convinced that my own fear for the future is appropriate, but there's a lot of uncertainty about whether it's too late. But for now we're all alive and I can't see what else to do but to try and apply what energy and intelligence we do have towards avoiding catastrophe.
And in typing that I have had a sudden flash of inspiration for the world of 2050. It is my desire to build a world where children and parents can both sleep peacefully in the knowledge that the world is well and life will indeed go on. I had that once. If I'm lucky I may experience it again one day, but regardless it sounds like a bloody good thing to word towards.
Goodnight for now.
Saturday 3 November 2007
Maths Problem
Solve:
A man has two identical water tanks of diameter 2.2m. Mere moments after connecting the downpipes to catch rainwater, the heavens open up and the tanks fill to a height of 0.8m. If the tanks have a combined capacity of 10,000 litres, how much higher can the water rise before it starts to overflow out the side of the tanks where no drain pipe currently exists, quite likely causing serious damage to the compacted rock dust foundation on which the tanks are sitting?
Answer:
Not bloody far enough! The bottom of the overflow outlet is less than 1.2m higher than the base of the tank, meaning the tanks are about two thirds full after just one night's worth of moderate rain and a couple of showers.
A bit of quick pipe work by my helpful neighbour (the one who installed the downpipes without the drainage in place, saying it wasn't going to rain soon enough to be a concern...) has now mitigated the threat. Any overflow will now be channelled a few metres away over the lawn where it can't cause any major trouble. Proper drainage to the street is a project for another day.
The next question is what to do with around 6,500 litres of water, given that I don't yet have a pump or any plumbing to take water into the laundry and toilet where it's needed. Thankfully the answer doesn't require a calculator: time to go pump shopping.
A man has two identical water tanks of diameter 2.2m. Mere moments after connecting the downpipes to catch rainwater, the heavens open up and the tanks fill to a height of 0.8m. If the tanks have a combined capacity of 10,000 litres, how much higher can the water rise before it starts to overflow out the side of the tanks where no drain pipe currently exists, quite likely causing serious damage to the compacted rock dust foundation on which the tanks are sitting?
Answer:
Not bloody far enough! The bottom of the overflow outlet is less than 1.2m higher than the base of the tank, meaning the tanks are about two thirds full after just one night's worth of moderate rain and a couple of showers.
A bit of quick pipe work by my helpful neighbour (the one who installed the downpipes without the drainage in place, saying it wasn't going to rain soon enough to be a concern...) has now mitigated the threat. Any overflow will now be channelled a few metres away over the lawn where it can't cause any major trouble. Proper drainage to the street is a project for another day.
The next question is what to do with around 6,500 litres of water, given that I don't yet have a pump or any plumbing to take water into the laundry and toilet where it's needed. Thankfully the answer doesn't require a calculator: time to go pump shopping.
Sunday 28 October 2007
Sunday Sermon
It's a weekend of bad news on a global scale, I'm afraid.
I linked just now to Greenpa's discussion of the fatal flaws in the idea of replacing oil with crop-derived ethanol. From a broader perspective there's also this report at New Scientist about the UN's official conclusion that we really are facing the end of the world as we know it due to human-caused environmental destruction and unsustainable development. The point is made there that energy consumption is the number one concern. Dramatic action is needed, now.
The ABC has a story about another new report which makes the startling conclusion that if we keep digging minerals out of the ground on an industrial scale then before too long there won't be any left. Well, duh, but for some reason humanity still seems to act as if the world's resources are limitless. Maybe seven billion is too large a number to really comprehend. But that's roughly how many people are now aspiring to live something like "the American dream".
I guess if there's anything positive it's that the broader message about sustainability is starting to get mainstream exposure. The shift in society and in politics is in the right direction. And speaking of politics, I'm delighted to see the ALP, Democrats and Greens joining forces to try and break the Liberal/National stranglehold in the Senate. If you're an Australian voter who cares at all about the future of humanity, please don't let the industrial-era coalition continue in power.
I linked just now to Greenpa's discussion of the fatal flaws in the idea of replacing oil with crop-derived ethanol. From a broader perspective there's also this report at New Scientist about the UN's official conclusion that we really are facing the end of the world as we know it due to human-caused environmental destruction and unsustainable development. The point is made there that energy consumption is the number one concern. Dramatic action is needed, now.
The ABC has a story about another new report which makes the startling conclusion that if we keep digging minerals out of the ground on an industrial scale then before too long there won't be any left. Well, duh, but for some reason humanity still seems to act as if the world's resources are limitless. Maybe seven billion is too large a number to really comprehend. But that's roughly how many people are now aspiring to live something like "the American dream".
I guess if there's anything positive it's that the broader message about sustainability is starting to get mainstream exposure. The shift in society and in politics is in the right direction. And speaking of politics, I'm delighted to see the ALP, Democrats and Greens joining forces to try and break the Liberal/National stranglehold in the Senate. If you're an Australian voter who cares at all about the future of humanity, please don't let the industrial-era coalition continue in power.
Fuelish Fantasies
One of my favourite bloggers, Greenpa, is a professional scientist who has lived a low-impact lifestyle for 30-odd years. His latest post is a stunner, making a convincing argument about why the dreams of the biofuels industry are more like naive fantasies. Please take a few minutes and have a read.
Then get back to reducing your energy dependence while you still have a chance.
Then get back to reducing your energy dependence while you still have a chance.
Saturday 27 October 2007
A productive day!
- Tank interconnecting pipe fitted: check.
- Overflow outlets fitted and sealed: check.
- Water level gauge fitted and calibrated: check.
- Custom gutter cleaning tool designed and fabricated: check.
- Gutters cleaned, probably for the first time in a decade: check.
- First flush diverters emptied ready for the next rains to rinse out the dirty gutters: check.
- Beer bottles emptied: check and check.
That's everything I'm willing to do myself. From here on I'm paying somebody else to finish the job. We've got overflow pipes to run underground to the street, a pump to install and internal plumbing to be done.
Well actually there's one more thing for me to do, which is to bury the connecting pipe that runs between the tanks. That can wait until after somebody has installed a t-piece in the middle of it for the pump to draw from.
Instead of a rubber... thing... to seal the overflow outlet I bought two 90-degree flanged fittings and just screwed them onto the outside of the tank with silicon to seal them. They point downwards and the insect barriers just pop onto the end of them. More pipe can be attached later to take any overflow safely away.
Friday 26 October 2007
Ebb and flow
Over the past 24 hours my attention has switched from finding missing water to managing unexpected water. We've had some short but heavy showers and something that could reasonably be called a storm, and so it is that my tanks are finally being put to use.
As best I can tell, the southern tank has about 20-30cm of water in it and the northern one about 30-40cm. If that's right then we've caught a bit over two thousand litres. It would have been substantially more in the northern tank if I'd managed to clean out the gutters before the rain came. But I didn't, and debris clogged up the pipe causing the water to back up and flow over the sides.
I'm pretty excited about having water in there, even though we can't actually use any of it yet. It's not high enough to come out of the bucket taps and I don't have any pipes or pump connected to the ground-level outlet. Still some work to do.
This weekend I have two tank tasks which must be completed. I need to get a rubber... thing... to properly seal the overflow outlets, and I need to clean the gutters. I'd also like to fit the gauge which I got replaced today, and if everything's really cruising along perhaps put in the connecting pipe.
And in the back of my mind I still have to figure out why we're using so much more water recently. Going to be a wet weekend, at least in my head.
As best I can tell, the southern tank has about 20-30cm of water in it and the northern one about 30-40cm. If that's right then we've caught a bit over two thousand litres. It would have been substantially more in the northern tank if I'd managed to clean out the gutters before the rain came. But I didn't, and debris clogged up the pipe causing the water to back up and flow over the sides.
I'm pretty excited about having water in there, even though we can't actually use any of it yet. It's not high enough to come out of the bucket taps and I don't have any pipes or pump connected to the ground-level outlet. Still some work to do.
This weekend I have two tank tasks which must be completed. I need to get a rubber... thing... to properly seal the overflow outlets, and I need to clean the gutters. I'd also like to fit the gauge which I got replaced today, and if everything's really cruising along perhaps put in the connecting pipe.
And in the back of my mind I still have to figure out why we're using so much more water recently. Going to be a wet weekend, at least in my head.
Thursday 25 October 2007
Water update
Two days have passed since the discovery that our household water use had shot up unexpectedly. I just read the meter again: an average of 424L per day for the past two days. That's better than 507 over the previous ten but still well up on our previous benchmark of under 350.
To test the idea that maybe our new water heater was wasting a lot of water by being over-heated, I placed a bucket beneath the overflow pipe. There's water there, for sure, but it's nowhere near the missing 75L per day. After two sunny days the bucket is about half full - we can use that water safely on the gardens so I don't have any real concern about that.
So we come back to the possibility of a leak, or a change in our behaviours. We'll focus on the behaviours first, maybe keep a log of our water use activities during the day. I'd really like to get those figures back to where they were without having to pay a plumber.
To test the idea that maybe our new water heater was wasting a lot of water by being over-heated, I placed a bucket beneath the overflow pipe. There's water there, for sure, but it's nowhere near the missing 75L per day. After two sunny days the bucket is about half full - we can use that water safely on the gardens so I don't have any real concern about that.
So we come back to the possibility of a leak, or a change in our behaviours. We'll focus on the behaviours first, maybe keep a log of our water use activities during the day. I'd really like to get those figures back to where they were without having to pay a plumber.
Tuesday 23 October 2007
Have we sprung a leak!?
In the past couple of months I've allowed the time being readings of the water and electricity meters to stretch out to about once a fortnight. Our consumption of both has been fairly consistent so there didn't seem much point in religiously getting out there every morning.
My previous reading was on the 13th of October and the figures for the preceding 18 days were a little high but nothing extraordinary: 7.3kWh electricity and 347L of water per day.
This morning, ten days later, there's something amiss. Electricity use has dropped back a touch to 6.9kWh per day, but water has shot up to an incredible 507L per day! That's 1.6kL of excess consumption and I just can't imagine where we might have used so much water. Got me wondering about a leak.
The other factor is the new solar water heater: it has a valve which opens under conditions of excess heat/pressure and I'm wondering how much water is being lost that way. I'll go and stick a bucket beneath the outlet (which is a bit of a risk, actually... bucket of really hot water just sitting there...) and try to get a feel for whether it's a significant amount.
Looks like I'll be reading the meters every day for a little while as I try to figure this out.
My previous reading was on the 13th of October and the figures for the preceding 18 days were a little high but nothing extraordinary: 7.3kWh electricity and 347L of water per day.
This morning, ten days later, there's something amiss. Electricity use has dropped back a touch to 6.9kWh per day, but water has shot up to an incredible 507L per day! That's 1.6kL of excess consumption and I just can't imagine where we might have used so much water. Got me wondering about a leak.
The other factor is the new solar water heater: it has a valve which opens under conditions of excess heat/pressure and I'm wondering how much water is being lost that way. I'll go and stick a bucket beneath the outlet (which is a bit of a risk, actually... bucket of really hot water just sitting there...) and try to get a feel for whether it's a significant amount.
Looks like I'll be reading the meters every day for a little while as I try to figure this out.
Sunday 21 October 2007
Gutter talk
Late last night a tiny spit of rain fell on my house. I almost didn't hear it on the roof tiles, and when I checked the weather radar there was nothing more than a few white dots scattered over the map. Even so, I went outside with a torch to see if there was anything noticeable happening with the tanks.
Checked the southern end first. No leaks from the new downpipe and a surprisingly steady stream of water burbling into the tank. Was thrilled at first, until I noticed that the water was actually going all the way into the tank instead of filling up the diverter which keeps that first run of dirty water out of the main tank. Check out the image on that linked page. See the hose that runs from the bottom of the diverter out to the outside wall of the tank? I'd forgotten to re-attach that after working inside the tank yesterday fitting the taps. Bummer.
The tank at the northern end was also being filled, but to my surprise it was doing so much more slowly than the southern one. That didn't seem right because the northern tank gets fed from both sides of the house instead of just one. But at least the diverter was filling up in that one.
This morning there was no trace of rain on the ground but at the northern end water was still trickling in from the gutters. Oh yeah... I really need to clean them out. All the crap in them had acted as a kind of sponge, absorbing the water and then releasing it slowly. More on that in a bit.
The diverter in that tank was completely full, and the water pressure demonstrated that I needed to seal the release valve better: it was dripping lightly and excavating a little trench in the crusher dust. The kids and I emptied the diverter into a bucket used the 20-odd litres of somewhat dirty water on our gardens.
Then I set to work removing the diverter from the southern tank, re-attaching its hose, assembling it all again, and using some plumber's tape to seal up the diverter release valves. So far so good. Now to the gutters.
Our stupid gutters. The roof tiles come right out to within a couple of centimetres of the outer edge of the gutters. There's not enough room for me to get my hand in there. I went to the hardware store this afternoon and bought a cleverly-designed gutter cleaning scoop, but there's not even enough room to get that in there. The gutters at the northern end of the house, especially on the eastern side where we have a shade tree, have better-looking compost in them than what's in the black bin at the end of my yard and I can't clean them out.
Very frustrated. Going to have to craft some kind of L-shaped scraping tool to try and clear some of the crap away before the "thundery rain" the Bureau is forecasting for later in the week. Like I have time for that $#!%.
Checked the southern end first. No leaks from the new downpipe and a surprisingly steady stream of water burbling into the tank. Was thrilled at first, until I noticed that the water was actually going all the way into the tank instead of filling up the diverter which keeps that first run of dirty water out of the main tank. Check out the image on that linked page. See the hose that runs from the bottom of the diverter out to the outside wall of the tank? I'd forgotten to re-attach that after working inside the tank yesterday fitting the taps. Bummer.
The tank at the northern end was also being filled, but to my surprise it was doing so much more slowly than the southern one. That didn't seem right because the northern tank gets fed from both sides of the house instead of just one. But at least the diverter was filling up in that one.
This morning there was no trace of rain on the ground but at the northern end water was still trickling in from the gutters. Oh yeah... I really need to clean them out. All the crap in them had acted as a kind of sponge, absorbing the water and then releasing it slowly. More on that in a bit.
The diverter in that tank was completely full, and the water pressure demonstrated that I needed to seal the release valve better: it was dripping lightly and excavating a little trench in the crusher dust. The kids and I emptied the diverter into a bucket used the 20-odd litres of somewhat dirty water on our gardens.
Then I set to work removing the diverter from the southern tank, re-attaching its hose, assembling it all again, and using some plumber's tape to seal up the diverter release valves. So far so good. Now to the gutters.
Our stupid gutters. The roof tiles come right out to within a couple of centimetres of the outer edge of the gutters. There's not enough room for me to get my hand in there. I went to the hardware store this afternoon and bought a cleverly-designed gutter cleaning scoop, but there's not even enough room to get that in there. The gutters at the northern end of the house, especially on the eastern side where we have a shade tree, have better-looking compost in them than what's in the black bin at the end of my yard and I can't clean them out.
Very frustrated. Going to have to craft some kind of L-shaped scraping tool to try and clear some of the crap away before the "thundery rain" the Bureau is forecasting for later in the week. Like I have time for that $#!%.
Saturday 20 October 2007
The Tank Fairy
I've never heard anyone speak of the Tank Fairy, but there must be one because mere hours after sliding tank #2 onto its base both tanks have been fitted with taps and hooked up to the downpipes - almost as if by magic!
I'd better stop with the fairy story or my very good neighbour, the actual worker of magic here, might get offended. Around the same time this morning as I was typing my previous post I noticed that Pete had come home. Pete's a builder and I wanted to get his advice about the next steps to take with the tanks. My thinking was that I had to get the overflows hooked up before I did anything else, and that's a big job.
Pete had a different opinion. He reckoned we'd be pretty damned lucky to get enough rain to cause any overflow at the moment and if there was it would be welcome on the garden. So he got stuck into the job of hooking the tanks up to the gutters.
We cut holes for the overflow of course, and I'm about to go and seal them with tape to prevent insects getting inside. We fitted the main valves at the bottom ready to be connected to each other and eventually the pump. And we fitted bucket taps about 40cm off the ground to allow general outdoor use of the water without the need for a pump at all, providing the water level is high enough.
I ordered a simple gauge which will make it easy to tell how much water's available.
Getting the interconnecting pipe fitted is the next priority - especially so since I decided to give up on connecting the southern tank to the downpipes at the front side of the house. There was just too much mucking about required so it's ended up only being attached to the rear corner. That means the northern tank will get about twice as much inflow as the southern one: I need the pipe in place to allow the water to distribute itself evenly between the two.
I'd better stop with the fairy story or my very good neighbour, the actual worker of magic here, might get offended. Around the same time this morning as I was typing my previous post I noticed that Pete had come home. Pete's a builder and I wanted to get his advice about the next steps to take with the tanks. My thinking was that I had to get the overflows hooked up before I did anything else, and that's a big job.
Pete had a different opinion. He reckoned we'd be pretty damned lucky to get enough rain to cause any overflow at the moment and if there was it would be welcome on the garden. So he got stuck into the job of hooking the tanks up to the gutters.
We cut holes for the overflow of course, and I'm about to go and seal them with tape to prevent insects getting inside. We fitted the main valves at the bottom ready to be connected to each other and eventually the pump. And we fitted bucket taps about 40cm off the ground to allow general outdoor use of the water without the need for a pump at all, providing the water level is high enough.
I ordered a simple gauge which will make it easy to tell how much water's available.
Getting the interconnecting pipe fitted is the next priority - especially so since I decided to give up on connecting the southern tank to the downpipes at the front side of the house. There was just too much mucking about required so it's ended up only being attached to the rear corner. That means the northern tank will get about twice as much inflow as the southern one: I need the pipe in place to allow the water to distribute itself evenly between the two.
Returning to our irregularly scheduled program
It must be almost a month since my last post. I'm not dead, and I haven't just abandoned this. Hopefully that doesn't disappoint any of you. It's just that my professional life has been highly demanding in recent weeks leaving not a lot of time for things that actually matter.
Unfortunately that's not likely to change for the next month or more so I have to squeeze things in when I can. That means a quick update now.
1. Seven or so weeks after getting my first tank sited on its base, this morning I finally got the second one into its own spot. The quality of the groundwork is not as good as the first one but I'm hoping it's good enough for the task. Now the next phase begins: drainage, pipes and plumbing.
2. I'm so impressed with the new solar water heater. There's no discernible difference between the new hot water and the old hot water out of the taps, but emotionally it feels great to have yesterday's sunshine warming my back in the shower. It's also wonderful to see the electricity meter sitting unmoved week after week.
3. The worms have me a bit concerned. They don't seem much inclined to eat any of the kitchen scraps, which kind of defeats the purpose of having them. There are also increasing numbers of non-worm inhabitants in the farm including some really tiny white ant-like creatures and some actual ants which are slightly less tiny and rather more black.
4. Of the dozen capsicum plants we transferred from the pot to the garden bed, one has died, two are looking less than fantastic and the rest appear to be thriving. There are flower buds forming around the tops of most of them even though they're only 30-40cm tall. The compost/mulch combination appears to have worked a treat for nourishing the capsicums while suppressing the weeds - so far I've only had to pull out a smattering of nut grass.
5. The tomato plants have just about run their course. They've produced a fair amount of fruit but it's all been very small - the largest about the size of small marbles but many nearly as small as peas. I'm planning to have another go in that pot but with better soil, a larger variety of tomato, just one plant instead of several, and pruning to try and focus the plant's energy on fruit production rather than straggly stalks.
6. Our carrots are also seeming to find their pot-bound existence a bit less than ideal. They're too crowded and the combination of water restrictions plus too-good drainage leaves them looking withered most afternoons. We'll see what we can do to make them fatter and sweeter but I'm not confident that this crop is going to end up being very edible.
7. The compost has been totally neglected for weeks. It's almost certainly full of mice, judging by its popularity with the neighbourhood cats. May have to start over again with that one.
8. A combination of bindies, weeds and flies is making outdoor time less pleasant. At least we don't have a plague of mosquitos - yet - like we did last summer.
Unfortunately that's not likely to change for the next month or more so I have to squeeze things in when I can. That means a quick update now.
1. Seven or so weeks after getting my first tank sited on its base, this morning I finally got the second one into its own spot. The quality of the groundwork is not as good as the first one but I'm hoping it's good enough for the task. Now the next phase begins: drainage, pipes and plumbing.
2. I'm so impressed with the new solar water heater. There's no discernible difference between the new hot water and the old hot water out of the taps, but emotionally it feels great to have yesterday's sunshine warming my back in the shower. It's also wonderful to see the electricity meter sitting unmoved week after week.
3. The worms have me a bit concerned. They don't seem much inclined to eat any of the kitchen scraps, which kind of defeats the purpose of having them. There are also increasing numbers of non-worm inhabitants in the farm including some really tiny white ant-like creatures and some actual ants which are slightly less tiny and rather more black.
4. Of the dozen capsicum plants we transferred from the pot to the garden bed, one has died, two are looking less than fantastic and the rest appear to be thriving. There are flower buds forming around the tops of most of them even though they're only 30-40cm tall. The compost/mulch combination appears to have worked a treat for nourishing the capsicums while suppressing the weeds - so far I've only had to pull out a smattering of nut grass.
5. The tomato plants have just about run their course. They've produced a fair amount of fruit but it's all been very small - the largest about the size of small marbles but many nearly as small as peas. I'm planning to have another go in that pot but with better soil, a larger variety of tomato, just one plant instead of several, and pruning to try and focus the plant's energy on fruit production rather than straggly stalks.
6. Our carrots are also seeming to find their pot-bound existence a bit less than ideal. They're too crowded and the combination of water restrictions plus too-good drainage leaves them looking withered most afternoons. We'll see what we can do to make them fatter and sweeter but I'm not confident that this crop is going to end up being very edible.
7. The compost has been totally neglected for weeks. It's almost certainly full of mice, judging by its popularity with the neighbourhood cats. May have to start over again with that one.
8. A combination of bindies, weeds and flies is making outdoor time less pleasant. At least we don't have a plague of mosquitos - yet - like we did last summer.
Friday 28 September 2007
Is it worm breeding season?
I took a peek in my worm farm this morning. Oh my gosh there are a lot of baby worms in there - roughly the thickness of a dressmaking pin and upwards. At least I hope they're baby worms and not some other kind of worm which shouldn't be there. Not to worry, this is an experiment after all.
The lower chamber looks to be almost completely consumed (ie converted to poo) and there's the beginnings of a good layer of castings in the upper chamber too.
After several months of feeding them not much at all, it seems like I now need to step up the pace a bit. Michelle went to a Tupperware party last weekend and ordered a little gadget which might come in really handy for this, though I'm sure that wasn't what she had in mind. More on that one after it's delivered.
The lower chamber looks to be almost completely consumed (ie converted to poo) and there's the beginnings of a good layer of castings in the upper chamber too.
After several months of feeding them not much at all, it seems like I now need to step up the pace a bit. Michelle went to a Tupperware party last weekend and ordered a little gadget which might come in really handy for this, though I'm sure that wasn't what she had in mind. More on that one after it's delivered.
Wednesday 26 September 2007
Reflections on the Climate Change Forum
Many thanks to all who attended last night's forum at the Chermside library, hosted by BNCWAG. There were around seventy people including the group members and the politicians which means fifty or more responded to our invitation.
We had five politicians participating:
- Wayne Swan, ALP (current member for Lilley)
- Simon Kean-Hammerson, Greens (candidate for Lilley)
- Andrew Bartlett, Democrats (senate representative for Qld)
- Larissa Waters, Greens (senate candidate for Qld)
- Phil Johnson, Climate Change Coalition (senate candidate for Qld)
In some ways I felt it was a little unbalanced to have two Greens candidates on the panel, but I guess it's representative of their concern for the issue of climate change that they would consider it worthwhile to spend their time with us.
We opened with Dr Trevor Berrill's presentation which appeared to be well accepted by everyone present, including the politicians. Trevor did a brilliant job of setting the context for the night, with an emphasis on climate change as part of a broader concern for sustainability. He brought the issue home with a look at the local impacts and a call for local responses.
Mr Swan's political experience and professionalism is immediately obvious and he has an engaging speaking style - a combination which gives him an edge in keeping people's attention while he talks. I interpreted his position (and by extension the position of the ALP) to be that although climate change is the single most urgent issue facing humanity, it's not important enough to take any action which might harm the Australian economy. Unlike the Liberal party they've announced a target for GHG reductions by 2050 - I think it's 60% below year 2000 levels, based on the recommendations of the Stern report from the UK. But they are refusing to say anything about shorter-term targets until their own economic advice comes through from an analysis which is currently underway.
Mr Bartlett is somewhat more softly-spoken, with the air of somebody who weighs his words carefully before he permits them to become speech. A serious but not sombre man who earned a warm reaction from the audience for his assessment of "clean coal" as a marketing term chosen more for its emotive effect than its accuracy. As he pointed out, "less-dirty coal" is more truthful but doesn't have the same ring to it. And although I can't recall many specific policy details I gained the firm impression that this thoughtful bloke represents a party that's genuinely interested in the advancement of humanity in an ethical, prosperous and sustainable fashion.
Mr Kean-Hammerson was the third speaker, and I mean no disrespect when I say that he did not appear to be very practised in the art of public presentation. The Greens policies have been online since March so there's not much to say in that regard other than to suggest you go and look them up if you aren't familiar with them. With regard to climate change specifically and sustainability in general, I suspect that my own vision and values are more closely aligned with the Greens than with the other "major" parties. I'm not entirely sure I'd be comfortable with a Green majority in parliament but their influence, especially in the Senate, is welcome. To get back to Mr Kean-Hammerson individually, I was fascinated by the insight gained through his childhood in Kenya (I think it was Kenya, please correct me if needed) with regards to social and industrial development. If you're a voter in the Lilley electorate, try and find an opportunity to speak with this man and get to know him a little better.
The introduction of our fourth speaker marked a small milestone in history. The Climate Change Coalition was only registered as a political party three weeks ago and last night was the first public address by Mr Johnson, who is standing for election to the Senate. As you can infer from their name they have a fairly focused agenda. Mr Johnson has a background as a professional in the health sciences and acquits himself well in front of an audience. The sceptic in me rates the party's election prospects as poor, but I'm a bit inclined to give Mr Johnson my primary vote as a statement of support for his policy objectives.
Ms Waters had the closing statement and an opportunity to repeat the Greens key messages. A 30-year-old environmental lawyer with a somewhat vivacious style, she pressed the case for Greens seats in the Senate as the only way to break the Liberal/National coalition's influence in government even if Kevin Rudd is successful in his bid for the Prime Minister's office. It's an argument that bears some serious consideration.
Now to try and summarise some of the audience's questions and the responses as best my recollection allows.
A challenge was made regarding the accuracy of the term "clean coal". Unsurprisingly four out of five candidates agreed that it was an oxymoron while Mr Swan stuck to the party line in stressing the belief that coal-sourced power is essential for Australia's economy in the foreseeable future.
The candidates were asked whether any of them were brave enough to face the public and urge us to change our consumptive behaviour in the interests of efficiency and sustainability. The most memorable response came from Ms Waters who declared that she tells people not to buy things they don't need because it won't make them happy and it harms the environment.
Mr Swan was challenged regarding the relative importance of climate change versus the economy. His response was the standard ALP cake-and-eat-it line with reference to the Stern report and the need to wait for the results of their own analysis before committing to any "rash" actions. I understand the need for a large party like the ALP to be cautious with their policy development and disclosure but I can't avoid the impression that they consider the possibility of recession to be worse than the predicted effects of climate change. If that's not true, the ALP needs to do a better job of communicating it.
An insightful question came from none other than Doone Wyborne of Geodynamics fame - the company which is attempting to develop the hot rock geothermal resource in South Australia. He asked about the parties' stance on population management. Unfortunately I wasn't able to listen to all of the responses but I did catch Mr Bartlett's comment that he wasn't a fan of "steady-state economics" but saw economic growth within a stable population as being necessary to alleviate poverty. Mr Swan expressed concern about the social consequences of a reducing population, advocating instead a long-term policy of "replacement", ie zero population growth. Mr Kean-Hammerson described a conversation with an African villager in which numerous children were seen as a necessary component of family life at least partly for their capacity to do work such as water carrying: the provision of electricity to perform such practical tasks would, it was claimed, reduce the incentive to bear more children.
I also took the opportunity to ask a question myself. It was prompted by Malcolm Turnbull's comment about the prospect of achieving a global zero-emissions electricity sector sometime this century and based on my belief that values drive behaviour. The first part of the question was directed towards Dr Berrill: is it feasible? His answer, essentially, was yes - provided we're all bloody serious about achieving it. The second part was for the politicians and all I needed was a yes/no answer. "Do you dare to envision a society like that?"
I was pretty sure that the Greens and the Climate Change Coalition would answer in the affirmative. The Democrats I had hope in. But I was concerned that the ALP - in reality the only party with a chance of wresting control from the nuclear-bent Liberals - would prevaricate or maybe even deny the possibility that an advanced technical society could achieve balance with nature. If the ALP wasn't even considering a zero-emissions future then the fight for climate action in the next few years would be a difficult one indeed.
To my delight, every one of the candidates including Mr Swan delivered an unqualified "yes" in response. I am yet hopeful for the future of human civilisation.
We had five politicians participating:
- Wayne Swan, ALP (current member for Lilley)
- Simon Kean-Hammerson, Greens (candidate for Lilley)
- Andrew Bartlett, Democrats (senate representative for Qld)
- Larissa Waters, Greens (senate candidate for Qld)
- Phil Johnson, Climate Change Coalition (senate candidate for Qld)
In some ways I felt it was a little unbalanced to have two Greens candidates on the panel, but I guess it's representative of their concern for the issue of climate change that they would consider it worthwhile to spend their time with us.
We opened with Dr Trevor Berrill's presentation which appeared to be well accepted by everyone present, including the politicians. Trevor did a brilliant job of setting the context for the night, with an emphasis on climate change as part of a broader concern for sustainability. He brought the issue home with a look at the local impacts and a call for local responses.
Mr Swan's political experience and professionalism is immediately obvious and he has an engaging speaking style - a combination which gives him an edge in keeping people's attention while he talks. I interpreted his position (and by extension the position of the ALP) to be that although climate change is the single most urgent issue facing humanity, it's not important enough to take any action which might harm the Australian economy. Unlike the Liberal party they've announced a target for GHG reductions by 2050 - I think it's 60% below year 2000 levels, based on the recommendations of the Stern report from the UK. But they are refusing to say anything about shorter-term targets until their own economic advice comes through from an analysis which is currently underway.
Mr Bartlett is somewhat more softly-spoken, with the air of somebody who weighs his words carefully before he permits them to become speech. A serious but not sombre man who earned a warm reaction from the audience for his assessment of "clean coal" as a marketing term chosen more for its emotive effect than its accuracy. As he pointed out, "less-dirty coal" is more truthful but doesn't have the same ring to it. And although I can't recall many specific policy details I gained the firm impression that this thoughtful bloke represents a party that's genuinely interested in the advancement of humanity in an ethical, prosperous and sustainable fashion.
Mr Kean-Hammerson was the third speaker, and I mean no disrespect when I say that he did not appear to be very practised in the art of public presentation. The Greens policies have been online since March so there's not much to say in that regard other than to suggest you go and look them up if you aren't familiar with them. With regard to climate change specifically and sustainability in general, I suspect that my own vision and values are more closely aligned with the Greens than with the other "major" parties. I'm not entirely sure I'd be comfortable with a Green majority in parliament but their influence, especially in the Senate, is welcome. To get back to Mr Kean-Hammerson individually, I was fascinated by the insight gained through his childhood in Kenya (I think it was Kenya, please correct me if needed) with regards to social and industrial development. If you're a voter in the Lilley electorate, try and find an opportunity to speak with this man and get to know him a little better.
The introduction of our fourth speaker marked a small milestone in history. The Climate Change Coalition was only registered as a political party three weeks ago and last night was the first public address by Mr Johnson, who is standing for election to the Senate. As you can infer from their name they have a fairly focused agenda. Mr Johnson has a background as a professional in the health sciences and acquits himself well in front of an audience. The sceptic in me rates the party's election prospects as poor, but I'm a bit inclined to give Mr Johnson my primary vote as a statement of support for his policy objectives.
Ms Waters had the closing statement and an opportunity to repeat the Greens key messages. A 30-year-old environmental lawyer with a somewhat vivacious style, she pressed the case for Greens seats in the Senate as the only way to break the Liberal/National coalition's influence in government even if Kevin Rudd is successful in his bid for the Prime Minister's office. It's an argument that bears some serious consideration.
Now to try and summarise some of the audience's questions and the responses as best my recollection allows.
A challenge was made regarding the accuracy of the term "clean coal". Unsurprisingly four out of five candidates agreed that it was an oxymoron while Mr Swan stuck to the party line in stressing the belief that coal-sourced power is essential for Australia's economy in the foreseeable future.
The candidates were asked whether any of them were brave enough to face the public and urge us to change our consumptive behaviour in the interests of efficiency and sustainability. The most memorable response came from Ms Waters who declared that she tells people not to buy things they don't need because it won't make them happy and it harms the environment.
Mr Swan was challenged regarding the relative importance of climate change versus the economy. His response was the standard ALP cake-and-eat-it line with reference to the Stern report and the need to wait for the results of their own analysis before committing to any "rash" actions. I understand the need for a large party like the ALP to be cautious with their policy development and disclosure but I can't avoid the impression that they consider the possibility of recession to be worse than the predicted effects of climate change. If that's not true, the ALP needs to do a better job of communicating it.
An insightful question came from none other than Doone Wyborne of Geodynamics fame - the company which is attempting to develop the hot rock geothermal resource in South Australia. He asked about the parties' stance on population management. Unfortunately I wasn't able to listen to all of the responses but I did catch Mr Bartlett's comment that he wasn't a fan of "steady-state economics" but saw economic growth within a stable population as being necessary to alleviate poverty. Mr Swan expressed concern about the social consequences of a reducing population, advocating instead a long-term policy of "replacement", ie zero population growth. Mr Kean-Hammerson described a conversation with an African villager in which numerous children were seen as a necessary component of family life at least partly for their capacity to do work such as water carrying: the provision of electricity to perform such practical tasks would, it was claimed, reduce the incentive to bear more children.
I also took the opportunity to ask a question myself. It was prompted by Malcolm Turnbull's comment about the prospect of achieving a global zero-emissions electricity sector sometime this century and based on my belief that values drive behaviour. The first part of the question was directed towards Dr Berrill: is it feasible? His answer, essentially, was yes - provided we're all bloody serious about achieving it. The second part was for the politicians and all I needed was a yes/no answer. "Do you dare to envision a society like that?"
I was pretty sure that the Greens and the Climate Change Coalition would answer in the affirmative. The Democrats I had hope in. But I was concerned that the ALP - in reality the only party with a chance of wresting control from the nuclear-bent Liberals - would prevaricate or maybe even deny the possibility that an advanced technical society could achieve balance with nature. If the ALP wasn't even considering a zero-emissions future then the fight for climate action in the next few years would be a difficult one indeed.
To my delight, every one of the candidates including Mr Swan delivered an unqualified "yes" in response. I am yet hopeful for the future of human civilisation.
Monday 24 September 2007
Free recycling for old computers: Oct 27-29
For my fellow residents of the Brisbane area.
A certain international computer company renowned for making lots of lots of stuff that people want to buy is running a free recycling program around the country for any old computers and related junk. Brisbane's turn is next month with six locations around the city open to take your unwanted stuff.
There are conditions on what's accepted but there are no strings attached. Full details online here.
A certain international computer company renowned for making lots of lots of stuff that people want to buy is running a free recycling program around the country for any old computers and related junk. Brisbane's turn is next month with six locations around the city open to take your unwanted stuff.
There are conditions on what's accepted but there are no strings attached. Full details online here.
More on Howard's "Clean Energy Target"
Since reading this morning's announcement and posting my initial response, I've come across more coverage from the ABC including an interview with Federal Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull. The transcript is here.
Apart from the mandatory political bluster and spin, there was this most amazing statement from the minister:
The whole world, with a zero emission electricity sector, this century. Credit where it's due: that's a great goal.
However... and you knew that had to be coming... zero emissions technology does not necessarily mean sustainable or even particularly desirable technology. Wind power has no waste products. Coal plants have megatonnes of CO2, fly ash and contaminated water, plus an ongoing dependence on oil for coal mining and transportation. Uranium-based nuclear is arguably worse. And in time even coal and uranium supplies will dwindle, leaving the world dependent on a greater energy supply than it can sustain.
(Rhetorically:) Minister, what would it take for you to at least aspire to a truly sustainable clean energy future? If not this century, then next? How much could we achieve even by 2050 if we truly put our hearts into it?
I begrudgingly concede that this is a step in the right direction, a slight improvement over what was. But I have to agree with John Connor of the Climate Institute who pointed out that Spain has a target of 30% renewable energy by 2020, prompting the question of why in sun-drenched Australia we couldn't aim to match or better that.
Still a case of "target, schmarget" as far as I'm concerned. Somebody bring me some real policy.
Apart from the mandatory political bluster and spin, there was this most amazing statement from the minister:
"Our approach to climate change... is pragmatic and practical. We are determined to meet this [target], we are determined to get to the point in the course of this century, where the whole world has a zero emission electricity sector, and we will aim to achieve that in Australia, but we've got to get there and do it practically."I was only this morning wondering to myself when we'd see a political party come out with some kind of long-term vision for energy supply, and in particular whether it was too much to ask for a party to look ahead to a 100% renewable, sustainable energy infrastructure. Out of the blue (no political pun intended) Mr Turnbull drops half of my dream into a national radio interview.
The whole world, with a zero emission electricity sector, this century. Credit where it's due: that's a great goal.
However... and you knew that had to be coming... zero emissions technology does not necessarily mean sustainable or even particularly desirable technology. Wind power has no waste products. Coal plants have megatonnes of CO2, fly ash and contaminated water, plus an ongoing dependence on oil for coal mining and transportation. Uranium-based nuclear is arguably worse. And in time even coal and uranium supplies will dwindle, leaving the world dependent on a greater energy supply than it can sustain.
(Rhetorically:) Minister, what would it take for you to at least aspire to a truly sustainable clean energy future? If not this century, then next? How much could we achieve even by 2050 if we truly put our hearts into it?
I begrudgingly concede that this is a step in the right direction, a slight improvement over what was. But I have to agree with John Connor of the Climate Institute who pointed out that Spain has a target of 30% renewable energy by 2020, prompting the question of why in sun-drenched Australia we couldn't aim to match or better that.
Still a case of "target, schmarget" as far as I'm concerned. Somebody bring me some real policy.
Target, my arse!
I hope that subject line got your attention. Because that's exactly the strategy employed by our Prime Minister with his weekend announcement of a "National Clean Energy Target". Hopefully I've got something more useful to say than he does.
The more astute reader may have already picked up on my subtle hints and started to suspect that I'm not particularly impressed with Mr Howard's efforts in the area of clean energy. But for the sake of not being an arse myself I'll make the majority of this post as objective and even-handed as I can, starting... now.
There are three major aspects to the announcement: the what, the how and the when.
What: 30,000 gigawatt hours of energy per year. It sure sounds like a lot (it's meant to) but it's a funny way of putting things. Since one year has around 8,760 hours in it we can convert it to a measure representing the average instantaneous rate of power generation. Dividing 30,000 by 8,760 gives a smidge over 3.4. That's 3.4 gigawatts. To put that into perspective, Tarong power station in South-East Queensland has a generating capacity of 1.4 gigawatts, so we're talking about just under two and a half Tarongs worth of energy. I've loaned my copy of Mark Diesendorf's book to a friend so I can't look up what fraction of Australia's total present energy generation that is but my initial estimate would be "not much". To be fair, increasing our total renewable energy capacity to this level would be a significant step forward, but see the next paragraph.
How: This is not a "renewable" energy target or even a "sustainable" energy target. This is an allegedly "clean" energy target which refers to "technologies that emit less than 200 kilograms of greenhouse gases per megawatt of electricity generated", explicitly including coal-fired systems with carbon capture and presumably including uranium-based nuclear plants. There's a serious omission in that definition, which is the amount of time over which those emissions will be measured. Multiplying 200kg/MW by 3.4GW gives 680 tonnes. But is that 680 tonnes per year? That would be quite impressive actually, but it could well mean 680 tonnes per HOUR. Regardless, it appears to be a business-as-usual approach from a government which has pledged its support for the coal and nuclear industries, declared its faith in the gospel of carbon capture and storage and demonstrated its disinterest truly clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources.
It must also be pointed out that this scheme is intended to replace all the existing state-based schemes and coalesce them into a national one. There could be some real advantages from an administrative and economic perspective in doing this. But whereas the existing schemes are largely being implemented using true renewables this new arrangement seeks to bring coal and possibly uranium-based nuclear energy under the same umbrella.
When: Mr Howard's announcement sets the year 2020 as the goal for implementing this scheme. That much at least is clear and unambiguous. But if 3.4GW is only a small fraction of today's consumption, it'll likely be a much smaller fraction in twelve years time unless dramatic action on energy-efficiency is taken between now and then.
In the end this policy has the appearance of a misleading pre-election publicity grab designed to give the marginally-concerned majority the impression that the Liberals are being proactive about addressing climate change and sustainability, when all they actually intend to do is sweep the carbon under the rug and rush to build uranium-based nuclear plants as soon as they possibly can.
The more astute reader may have already picked up on my subtle hints and started to suspect that I'm not particularly impressed with Mr Howard's efforts in the area of clean energy. But for the sake of not being an arse myself I'll make the majority of this post as objective and even-handed as I can, starting... now.
There are three major aspects to the announcement: the what, the how and the when.
What: 30,000 gigawatt hours of energy per year. It sure sounds like a lot (it's meant to) but it's a funny way of putting things. Since one year has around 8,760 hours in it we can convert it to a measure representing the average instantaneous rate of power generation. Dividing 30,000 by 8,760 gives a smidge over 3.4. That's 3.4 gigawatts. To put that into perspective, Tarong power station in South-East Queensland has a generating capacity of 1.4 gigawatts, so we're talking about just under two and a half Tarongs worth of energy. I've loaned my copy of Mark Diesendorf's book to a friend so I can't look up what fraction of Australia's total present energy generation that is but my initial estimate would be "not much". To be fair, increasing our total renewable energy capacity to this level would be a significant step forward, but see the next paragraph.
How: This is not a "renewable" energy target or even a "sustainable" energy target. This is an allegedly "clean" energy target which refers to "technologies that emit less than 200 kilograms of greenhouse gases per megawatt of electricity generated", explicitly including coal-fired systems with carbon capture and presumably including uranium-based nuclear plants. There's a serious omission in that definition, which is the amount of time over which those emissions will be measured. Multiplying 200kg/MW by 3.4GW gives 680 tonnes. But is that 680 tonnes per year? That would be quite impressive actually, but it could well mean 680 tonnes per HOUR. Regardless, it appears to be a business-as-usual approach from a government which has pledged its support for the coal and nuclear industries, declared its faith in the gospel of carbon capture and storage and demonstrated its disinterest truly clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources.
It must also be pointed out that this scheme is intended to replace all the existing state-based schemes and coalesce them into a national one. There could be some real advantages from an administrative and economic perspective in doing this. But whereas the existing schemes are largely being implemented using true renewables this new arrangement seeks to bring coal and possibly uranium-based nuclear energy under the same umbrella.
When: Mr Howard's announcement sets the year 2020 as the goal for implementing this scheme. That much at least is clear and unambiguous. But if 3.4GW is only a small fraction of today's consumption, it'll likely be a much smaller fraction in twelve years time unless dramatic action on energy-efficiency is taken between now and then.
In the end this policy has the appearance of a misleading pre-election publicity grab designed to give the marginally-concerned majority the impression that the Liberals are being proactive about addressing climate change and sustainability, when all they actually intend to do is sweep the carbon under the rug and rush to build uranium-based nuclear plants as soon as they possibly can.
Sunday 23 September 2007
Regarding baseload power
Just following up on my last post where I briefly mentioned that the reason we can get such cheap power on off-peak rates is that coal-fired power stations can't be shut down overnight and the energy they produce has to go somewhere.
Found an interesting article today (via EcoGeek) from which I take the following quotes:
Those of us who wish to support the expansion of the renewable energy industry need to counter the argument that renewables cannot supply sufficient baseload power. Perhaps we should be pointing out that the demand for such high power consumption overnight has been artificially generated to suit the coal-fired power stations.
But I'll also take that as justification for my decision to invest in a solar water heater even though it doesn't appear to make economic sense under current conditions. By reducing our night-time electricity consumption I'm ever so slightly changing the demand curve and eroding the argument that we need technology which can provide such large amounts of energy 24 hours a day.
Found an interesting article today (via EcoGeek) from which I take the following quotes:
"Baseload is what those older technologies provided, not what we need... We need something that follows the natural load."
In other words, the grid is currently constructed to accommodate capital-intensive fossil fuel plants that need to run 24/7 to be most efficient and economical. The natural load, on the other hand, is the demand for electricity created by people's and the economy's daily rhythm. That demand naturally peaks when people are up and about and falls at night when they're asleep. Renewable energy sources, Mills argues, more closely mirror human behavior. Solar electricity production soars when demand does during the day. At night, stored solar energy and other renewable sources like wind, which tends to blow strongest in the evening, can more closely match lower demand as people and machines wind down.
Those of us who wish to support the expansion of the renewable energy industry need to counter the argument that renewables cannot supply sufficient baseload power. Perhaps we should be pointing out that the demand for such high power consumption overnight has been artificially generated to suit the coal-fired power stations.
But I'll also take that as justification for my decision to invest in a solar water heater even though it doesn't appear to make economic sense under current conditions. By reducing our night-time electricity consumption I'm ever so slightly changing the demand curve and eroding the argument that we need technology which can provide such large amounts of energy 24 hours a day.
Friday 21 September 2007
Money and power
This past week has had a fairly clear theme for me: the price of energy. There's the record-breaking crude oil prices, a discussion at our BNCWAG meeting about the confusing options for buying renewable electricity and then of course the replacement of our hot water system with a solar one.
Lets leave the oil issue alone for the moment (partly because the record prices are being kicked along by a weak US dollar which reduces the significance of the raw numbers). Just now I'm more interested in the electricity market.
Here in Queensland the energy market is regulated. There are fixed tariffs for the supply of electricity to various types of customers for various purposes. Most homes have two circuits: one which supplies electricity for general domestic purposes 24 hours a day for roughly 15c per kWh, and another which typically is connected to a water heater but only works during off-peak hours and is billed at a much lower rate (as low as about 6.5c per kWh).
These prices are the new ones, following an increase at the start of July which was largely attributed to the rising cost of producing electricity with cooling water being in short supply due to the drought. Ironically the drought conditions have led to a significant reduction in shower times and a corresponding reduction in the amount of water heating required. My most recent figures have us averaging 7.3kWh per day this winter at a cost of around 47c.
Now here's the bit which is bugging me. If my shiny new solar hot water system was so good that it never needed any electrical boosting (it's not), and assuming that we required that same amount of heating all year round (we don't), it would take just shy of 30 years for us to recoup the cost of the new unit from the savings on our electricity bills.
I can imagine my wife's raised eyebrow and my father's shaking head about now. But even having run these numbers I would still make the same decision again. It's only bugging me because it makes it harder to convince other people that it's a decision they'd want to make too. There are three reasons I want to point out here.
1. This is mostly about saving energy, not money
The pursuit of short-term economic advantage is what led to our current dirty coal infrastructure and is what maintains the hegemony of the coal industry in Australia's energy industry.
The reason that electricity is available at less than half price overnight is that the massive steam turbines in the coal-fired power plants cannot be switched on and off in a daily cycle. The operators of these plants need to smooth out the demand curve over the course of the day and these skewed pricing arrangements help them achieve that by encouraging additional energy consumption during the night.
It works too: this past quarter my water heater used more energy than everything else in the rest of the house combined! Though it will reduce our bill by less than 30% and at these prices will never pay for itself, installing a solar hot water system is going to approximately halve our total electricity consumption.
2. Electricity prices are likely to rise sharply - even for dirty coal.
There are a number of pressures on the electricity market which I suspect will cause prices to rise sharply over the next couple of decades. If you forgot about sustainability concerns completely you'd still have decreasing availability of cooling water, increasing global demand for coal, increasing local demand for electricity and the need for infrastructure work on generation and transmission.
Now I do hope that the sustainability and environmental agenda is going to have a powerful influence on future policy and development. This would lead to greater reliance on wind and other renewables which have a lower overall capacity, generally higher cost (than the present price of coal where many costs are subsidised or simply not accounted for) and a different delivery profile (solar, for example, is obviously linked to daily cycles).
All in all I expect the price of a unit of energy for the end user like you and me is going nowhere but up. Hopefully through a range of efficiency measures we can keep our overall costs from rising. My Solahart might turn out to be an economic winner in the future.
3. It's in keeping with the philosophy of sustainable design
I keep thinking back to McDonough's work on architecture and building design and his philosophy of making the best use of the available natural resources. Without the solar water heater up there the sunlight's energy would be wasted. My vision for the future is nowhere near as vivid as McDonough's but I'm quite certain that I'd expect to see solar heating in a place like Brisbane.
Lets leave the oil issue alone for the moment (partly because the record prices are being kicked along by a weak US dollar which reduces the significance of the raw numbers). Just now I'm more interested in the electricity market.
Here in Queensland the energy market is regulated. There are fixed tariffs for the supply of electricity to various types of customers for various purposes. Most homes have two circuits: one which supplies electricity for general domestic purposes 24 hours a day for roughly 15c per kWh, and another which typically is connected to a water heater but only works during off-peak hours and is billed at a much lower rate (as low as about 6.5c per kWh).
These prices are the new ones, following an increase at the start of July which was largely attributed to the rising cost of producing electricity with cooling water being in short supply due to the drought. Ironically the drought conditions have led to a significant reduction in shower times and a corresponding reduction in the amount of water heating required. My most recent figures have us averaging 7.3kWh per day this winter at a cost of around 47c.
Now here's the bit which is bugging me. If my shiny new solar hot water system was so good that it never needed any electrical boosting (it's not), and assuming that we required that same amount of heating all year round (we don't), it would take just shy of 30 years for us to recoup the cost of the new unit from the savings on our electricity bills.
I can imagine my wife's raised eyebrow and my father's shaking head about now. But even having run these numbers I would still make the same decision again. It's only bugging me because it makes it harder to convince other people that it's a decision they'd want to make too. There are three reasons I want to point out here.
1. This is mostly about saving energy, not money
The pursuit of short-term economic advantage is what led to our current dirty coal infrastructure and is what maintains the hegemony of the coal industry in Australia's energy industry.
The reason that electricity is available at less than half price overnight is that the massive steam turbines in the coal-fired power plants cannot be switched on and off in a daily cycle. The operators of these plants need to smooth out the demand curve over the course of the day and these skewed pricing arrangements help them achieve that by encouraging additional energy consumption during the night.
It works too: this past quarter my water heater used more energy than everything else in the rest of the house combined! Though it will reduce our bill by less than 30% and at these prices will never pay for itself, installing a solar hot water system is going to approximately halve our total electricity consumption.
2. Electricity prices are likely to rise sharply - even for dirty coal.
There are a number of pressures on the electricity market which I suspect will cause prices to rise sharply over the next couple of decades. If you forgot about sustainability concerns completely you'd still have decreasing availability of cooling water, increasing global demand for coal, increasing local demand for electricity and the need for infrastructure work on generation and transmission.
Now I do hope that the sustainability and environmental agenda is going to have a powerful influence on future policy and development. This would lead to greater reliance on wind and other renewables which have a lower overall capacity, generally higher cost (than the present price of coal where many costs are subsidised or simply not accounted for) and a different delivery profile (solar, for example, is obviously linked to daily cycles).
All in all I expect the price of a unit of energy for the end user like you and me is going nowhere but up. Hopefully through a range of efficiency measures we can keep our overall costs from rising. My Solahart might turn out to be an economic winner in the future.
3. It's in keeping with the philosophy of sustainable design
I keep thinking back to McDonough's work on architecture and building design and his philosophy of making the best use of the available natural resources. Without the solar water heater up there the sunlight's energy would be wasted. My vision for the future is nowhere near as vivid as McDonough's but I'm quite certain that I'd expect to see solar heating in a place like Brisbane.
Sunshine on tap
True to their word, the Solahart mob came and installed our new water heater today. The tank was only filled mid-afternoon so it's not had a chance to capture much sun yet and the water coming out of the tap is merely tepid. We've got the electric booster switch turned on tonight so that we can have a shower in the morning, but hopefully tomorrow night the kids will be enjoying the warmth of the sun after dark as they take their bath.
Tuesday 18 September 2007
He was only 19... now where's the new kid?
There was a death in the household today. Finally!
Our hulking great electric-storage hot water system sprung a leak this morning after spending 19 years turning one of the most useful forms of energy into one of the least. Hooray and good riddance.
It was a bit of fun in a way. The silly thing was installed inside (presumably so we didn't lose too much heat during Brisbane's biting winters...?) which meant that a sudden leak was something of an emergency. Had to try and shut off the water coming into it and hold open the valves to let as much water as possible escape through the overflow pipe instead of onto the laundry floor. Then discovered that the inlet shut-off tap, which probably hadn't been used in nearly 20 years, just didn't work. The only way to stop the water from flowing was to turn it off at the mains.
Right about then I called Solahart and booked a guy to come out and see us ASAP, which was originally defined as 4:30pm but ended up being closer to 6 after he forgot and I had to chase him up. Oh well, these things happen. In the meantime I had to restore mains water for all our other needs like drinking and flushing the toilet - I ended up removing the inlet tap completely and sealing off that pipe with a brass cap that set me back the princely sum of one hundred and five cents.
I was surprised in the end by the advice we received and the product we ended up ordering. The bloke said that in a place like Brisbane which gets so much sun you should actually avoid buying the most thermally-efficient solar water heaters because for much of the summer you'll end up with water being heated to boiling point, which means a whole lot of water being released down the drain and being completely wasted. With that in mind and having given due consideration to the orientation of our house and the load-bearing capacity of the roof, we're getting a 300L roof-mounted model from the lower-end "L Series".
Because of the weight distribution it'll be mounted flat on the roof facing slightly north of west instead of on a riser which would have had it facing slightly east of north. To compensate for the reduced exposure to the sun it'll have three collector panels instead of the usual two.
If we're lucky it'll be installed before the weekend.
Our hulking great electric-storage hot water system sprung a leak this morning after spending 19 years turning one of the most useful forms of energy into one of the least. Hooray and good riddance.
It was a bit of fun in a way. The silly thing was installed inside (presumably so we didn't lose too much heat during Brisbane's biting winters...?) which meant that a sudden leak was something of an emergency. Had to try and shut off the water coming into it and hold open the valves to let as much water as possible escape through the overflow pipe instead of onto the laundry floor. Then discovered that the inlet shut-off tap, which probably hadn't been used in nearly 20 years, just didn't work. The only way to stop the water from flowing was to turn it off at the mains.
Right about then I called Solahart and booked a guy to come out and see us ASAP, which was originally defined as 4:30pm but ended up being closer to 6 after he forgot and I had to chase him up. Oh well, these things happen. In the meantime I had to restore mains water for all our other needs like drinking and flushing the toilet - I ended up removing the inlet tap completely and sealing off that pipe with a brass cap that set me back the princely sum of one hundred and five cents.
I was surprised in the end by the advice we received and the product we ended up ordering. The bloke said that in a place like Brisbane which gets so much sun you should actually avoid buying the most thermally-efficient solar water heaters because for much of the summer you'll end up with water being heated to boiling point, which means a whole lot of water being released down the drain and being completely wasted. With that in mind and having given due consideration to the orientation of our house and the load-bearing capacity of the roof, we're getting a 300L roof-mounted model from the lower-end "L Series". Because of the weight distribution it'll be mounted flat on the roof facing slightly north of west instead of on a riser which would have had it facing slightly east of north. To compensate for the reduced exposure to the sun it'll have three collector panels instead of the usual two.
If we're lucky it'll be installed before the weekend.
Saturday 15 September 2007
Imagine (not quite) all the people
A really, really long post but one which means a lot to me.
There are a whole litany of serious environmental and resource-depletion crises besetting this amazing Earth. We're fairly well aware of Climate Change and Peak Oil because of media exposure and their direct impacts on us, but there's also the destruction of habitats and the resulting mass extinctions, the over-exploitation of fisheries leading to ecosystem collapses... and on and on it goes. At some level we can frequently find links between these issues and purely human problems like war, poverty and disease.
Everybody in the developed world knows all of this. Most of us care to some degree but are generally too involved in our immediate, day-to-day concerns to try and do anything serious about alleviating these problems. Most of the time it all just seems overwhelming. But in the backs of our minds lurks one simple, indisputable, dangerous fact which offers a solution to all of these woes and at the same time is almost anathema:
The Earth would be far better off if there were not so many people living on it.
It doesn't sound so scary on the surface, but let's scratch at it a little. Arbitrarily, let's say we think that three billion of us would be a nice sustainable number. That's a bit less than half the number of people living today. How do we get from here to there?
If it would save the world, would it be justifiable to deliberately kill off half of humanity? I don't think so. But not everybody would agree with me. White supremacists, for example, would be very quick to suggest which half of the population should inherit the Earth. Still, simply halving the population is a foolish notion anyway because the real long-term problem is with population growth.
Pretend that our current world population of six-odd billion is sustainable in environmental and resource availability terms. Then ponder for a moment (a long moment, preferably) how we might keep the population at that level and no higher.
This is the really hard bit. Remember my recent post about how values drive behaviour? (Here) As far as I can recall, Maslov didn't explicitly talk about humans having a "need" to have children. Perhaps he should have, or perhaps it's just so obvious it didn't need to be mentioned. But I believe that as clever and "evolved" as we are, we are still deeply driven by instinctive, natural forces to go forth and multiply. Every single one of your ancestors, right back to Adam or the Amoeba (depending on your world view) did exactly that. It's who you are. It's intrinsic to the nature of every living thing.
Over time that instinct has been reinforced by the natural law of strength in numbers. Species which have more offspring tend to have a survival advantage whether it be through simply playing the numbers game (like sea turtles) or through group behaviours (like ants or bees).
Getting back to that simple, indisputable, dangerous idea... I think we find the notion of population limits so troubling because it's unnatural.
My wife and I have three children, each of them deliberately conceived and dearly loved. It's natural and wonderful and I delight in my family. But in choosing to have a third child I have become part of the overpopulation problem.
(In my defense let me note that Michelle was about five months pregnant already when I had the emotional breakdown which resulted in me taking up the cause of sustainability. We won't be having a fourth.)
I get to wondering about what possible hope there might be for the future. It seems obvious to me that if we continue on our present and entirely natural track we're going to repeat the Easter Island story on a global scale, or something similarly catastrophic. Somehow we must become self-limiting not only in our consumption of resources (which we are actually starting to do!) but also in our reproduction.
Pause there and take a breather before I try and condense all of the above into a single paragraph...
We're bringing calamity upon ourselves and the rest of the world as a result of us simply doing what comes naturally. It's not ethical (or in any way practical) to try and cull the existing population. Saving the world will require nothing less than all six billion of us agreeing to deliberately limit the number of descendants we have, in direct defiance of nature itself. Failure to do this could result in the extinction of humanity and possibly of most or all life on Earth.
It's an impossibly daunting idea.
But just imagine if it could be done. What would such a society be like to live in? If we're going to succeed in the long term I suspect we'll see well-established pockets of this kind of society by 2050.
By definition I'm not talking about a "one child policy" such as exists in China. That's a strategy for reducing population rather than maintaining a steady one. In a steady-state population each adult would have exactly two children, on average.
Perhaps a "two child policy" will form the basis of our future civilisation. For the sake of human rights I don't think it's something which should be in any way enforceable by law - if a couple wanted fourteen children I feel it would be morally wrong to forceably prevent them from having them (assuming that the children would be properly cared for). But at the same time if birth numbers were carefully monitored then a system of "voluntary allocation" could be devised to help keep the population steady.
Start with the notion that beyond the inherent right to reproduce, it's reasonable for every person to have two children. Of course you need two people to make a child so this is not a doubling process. Each child represents two combined "rights" from two parents.
I suspect that in a society with a strong philosophy of sustainable population there would be an increased number of people who would choose to remain childless. It may be that they wish to live a life of rich experience without parental responsibility. Or they may feel that the best way for them to contribute to society would be by devoting themselves to professional or philanthrophic endeavours. Such a person could notionally "give up" their right to have two children and in doing so make it reasonable that another couple somewhere might have one more. (Remember that individuals don't have children - couples do. Making one child requires two "rights" to come together.)
It's almost certain that there will always be premature deaths. If an adult dies before having produced any offspring then "their" children could reasonably be had by somebody else. Should a child die, I imagine the bereaved parents would be considered to have the right to bear another should they so desire - but if they chose not to then it seems reasonable that another couple might have an additional child to make up for the one lost.
On the other side of the equation there are those who become parents of more than two children by accident or who simply desire a larger family. In a voluntary steady-state population there would ideally be enough people making deliberate family planning decisions on the basis of the overall population balance that a zero growth rate could be maintained.
I reckon I could live in a world like that. One more thing before I wrap this up: could it possibly work in real life on a global scale?
Honestly, I have no idea. On the positive side I do know that people can choose to alter their behaviour if their values demand they do something other than what's "natural". Witness suicide bombers...
The negatives are pretty big though. Avoiding pregnancy requires either contraception or sexual restraint - already a big challenge in the developing world for several reasons. As far as I know the world's system of economics considers population growth to be necessary thing. And in strategic military terms a larger population is generally more powerful than a smaller one (the old strength in numbers thing) and there's more than enough national, racial and religious tension in the world to make that a current concern.
Yet again for me it comes down to a question of values. If humanity wanted to maintain a sustainable population, I believe it certainly could do so.
What do you think? If you agree with me, what can we do to bring about this kind of change in the world?
Thanks so much for reading.
There are a whole litany of serious environmental and resource-depletion crises besetting this amazing Earth. We're fairly well aware of Climate Change and Peak Oil because of media exposure and their direct impacts on us, but there's also the destruction of habitats and the resulting mass extinctions, the over-exploitation of fisheries leading to ecosystem collapses... and on and on it goes. At some level we can frequently find links between these issues and purely human problems like war, poverty and disease.
Everybody in the developed world knows all of this. Most of us care to some degree but are generally too involved in our immediate, day-to-day concerns to try and do anything serious about alleviating these problems. Most of the time it all just seems overwhelming. But in the backs of our minds lurks one simple, indisputable, dangerous fact which offers a solution to all of these woes and at the same time is almost anathema:
The Earth would be far better off if there were not so many people living on it.
It doesn't sound so scary on the surface, but let's scratch at it a little. Arbitrarily, let's say we think that three billion of us would be a nice sustainable number. That's a bit less than half the number of people living today. How do we get from here to there?
If it would save the world, would it be justifiable to deliberately kill off half of humanity? I don't think so. But not everybody would agree with me. White supremacists, for example, would be very quick to suggest which half of the population should inherit the Earth. Still, simply halving the population is a foolish notion anyway because the real long-term problem is with population growth.
Pretend that our current world population of six-odd billion is sustainable in environmental and resource availability terms. Then ponder for a moment (a long moment, preferably) how we might keep the population at that level and no higher.
This is the really hard bit. Remember my recent post about how values drive behaviour? (Here) As far as I can recall, Maslov didn't explicitly talk about humans having a "need" to have children. Perhaps he should have, or perhaps it's just so obvious it didn't need to be mentioned. But I believe that as clever and "evolved" as we are, we are still deeply driven by instinctive, natural forces to go forth and multiply. Every single one of your ancestors, right back to Adam or the Amoeba (depending on your world view) did exactly that. It's who you are. It's intrinsic to the nature of every living thing.
Over time that instinct has been reinforced by the natural law of strength in numbers. Species which have more offspring tend to have a survival advantage whether it be through simply playing the numbers game (like sea turtles) or through group behaviours (like ants or bees).
Getting back to that simple, indisputable, dangerous idea... I think we find the notion of population limits so troubling because it's unnatural.
My wife and I have three children, each of them deliberately conceived and dearly loved. It's natural and wonderful and I delight in my family. But in choosing to have a third child I have become part of the overpopulation problem.
(In my defense let me note that Michelle was about five months pregnant already when I had the emotional breakdown which resulted in me taking up the cause of sustainability. We won't be having a fourth.)
I get to wondering about what possible hope there might be for the future. It seems obvious to me that if we continue on our present and entirely natural track we're going to repeat the Easter Island story on a global scale, or something similarly catastrophic. Somehow we must become self-limiting not only in our consumption of resources (which we are actually starting to do!) but also in our reproduction.
Pause there and take a breather before I try and condense all of the above into a single paragraph...
We're bringing calamity upon ourselves and the rest of the world as a result of us simply doing what comes naturally. It's not ethical (or in any way practical) to try and cull the existing population. Saving the world will require nothing less than all six billion of us agreeing to deliberately limit the number of descendants we have, in direct defiance of nature itself. Failure to do this could result in the extinction of humanity and possibly of most or all life on Earth.
It's an impossibly daunting idea.
But just imagine if it could be done. What would such a society be like to live in? If we're going to succeed in the long term I suspect we'll see well-established pockets of this kind of society by 2050.
By definition I'm not talking about a "one child policy" such as exists in China. That's a strategy for reducing population rather than maintaining a steady one. In a steady-state population each adult would have exactly two children, on average.
Perhaps a "two child policy" will form the basis of our future civilisation. For the sake of human rights I don't think it's something which should be in any way enforceable by law - if a couple wanted fourteen children I feel it would be morally wrong to forceably prevent them from having them (assuming that the children would be properly cared for). But at the same time if birth numbers were carefully monitored then a system of "voluntary allocation" could be devised to help keep the population steady.
Start with the notion that beyond the inherent right to reproduce, it's reasonable for every person to have two children. Of course you need two people to make a child so this is not a doubling process. Each child represents two combined "rights" from two parents.
I suspect that in a society with a strong philosophy of sustainable population there would be an increased number of people who would choose to remain childless. It may be that they wish to live a life of rich experience without parental responsibility. Or they may feel that the best way for them to contribute to society would be by devoting themselves to professional or philanthrophic endeavours. Such a person could notionally "give up" their right to have two children and in doing so make it reasonable that another couple somewhere might have one more. (Remember that individuals don't have children - couples do. Making one child requires two "rights" to come together.)
It's almost certain that there will always be premature deaths. If an adult dies before having produced any offspring then "their" children could reasonably be had by somebody else. Should a child die, I imagine the bereaved parents would be considered to have the right to bear another should they so desire - but if they chose not to then it seems reasonable that another couple might have an additional child to make up for the one lost.
On the other side of the equation there are those who become parents of more than two children by accident or who simply desire a larger family. In a voluntary steady-state population there would ideally be enough people making deliberate family planning decisions on the basis of the overall population balance that a zero growth rate could be maintained.
I reckon I could live in a world like that. One more thing before I wrap this up: could it possibly work in real life on a global scale?
Honestly, I have no idea. On the positive side I do know that people can choose to alter their behaviour if their values demand they do something other than what's "natural". Witness suicide bombers...
The negatives are pretty big though. Avoiding pregnancy requires either contraception or sexual restraint - already a big challenge in the developing world for several reasons. As far as I know the world's system of economics considers population growth to be necessary thing. And in strategic military terms a larger population is generally more powerful than a smaller one (the old strength in numbers thing) and there's more than enough national, racial and religious tension in the world to make that a current concern.
Yet again for me it comes down to a question of values. If humanity wanted to maintain a sustainable population, I believe it certainly could do so.
What do you think? If you agree with me, what can we do to bring about this kind of change in the world?
Thanks so much for reading.
The best news I've had in ages
Check out this story in today's local newspaper, then come back to me.
With the exception of some of the public comments at the bottom, I am absolutely delighted to see this. No, I haven't finally gone mad, this is actually really good news.
Why? Two reasons.
First, because Andrew McNamara has been appointed as Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability by new Qld Premier, Anna Bligh. Andrew has been on my watch list for a little while now as both the Member for Hervey Bay and the patron of the Australian branch of ASPO - the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (and gas). This guy clearly understands that we are facing an enormous threat in the form of soaring fuel prices and he's now been placed in a position of authority where there's the potential for taking real action towards reshaping our society to cope with it.
Secondly, Peak Oil is now front page news. I've said in the past that I think it's a pity Climate Change got the public's attention first. In my opinion Peak Oil is the more critical problem - though of course our response to it must include a comprehensive strategy to deal with the climate issue. It was inevitable that people would bump into the oil problem eventually but I think today goes down in history as the day that South-East Queensland first took notice.
I wonder how long it'll be before Canberra does the same.
With the exception of some of the public comments at the bottom, I am absolutely delighted to see this. No, I haven't finally gone mad, this is actually really good news.
Why? Two reasons.
First, because Andrew McNamara has been appointed as Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability by new Qld Premier, Anna Bligh. Andrew has been on my watch list for a little while now as both the Member for Hervey Bay and the patron of the Australian branch of ASPO - the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (and gas). This guy clearly understands that we are facing an enormous threat in the form of soaring fuel prices and he's now been placed in a position of authority where there's the potential for taking real action towards reshaping our society to cope with it.
Secondly, Peak Oil is now front page news. I've said in the past that I think it's a pity Climate Change got the public's attention first. In my opinion Peak Oil is the more critical problem - though of course our response to it must include a comprehensive strategy to deal with the climate issue. It was inevitable that people would bump into the oil problem eventually but I think today goes down in history as the day that South-East Queensland first took notice.
I wonder how long it'll be before Canberra does the same.
Event: An Inconvenient Truth presentation
Brought to you by the BNCWAG...
We are delighted to have Chris McGrath from Environmental Law Publishing coming to present Al Gore's famous slideshow. Chris was one of the 85 Aussies trained by Mr Gore last year to help spread the message about humanity's impact on the climate. As well as the presentation itself there's plenty of opportunity to ask questions - both of Chris and our group members.
Wednesday 10th October, 6:30pm for a 7pm start.
Chermside Library meeting room.
375 Hamilton Road, Chermside.
Mr S and I are hoping to have a display set up to show people how we're reducing our greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency measures and the use of renewable energy. If you have any suggestions or questions please let me know in the comments.
Monday 10 September 2007
BNCWAG
All the good names are taken. This is a problem for anybody who wants to start a blog, a business or even a community group. So it is that I find myself a proud participant in the Brisbane North Climate and Water Action Group, or BNCWAG for short.
Yes I'm having a bit of a joke about the name, but I'm quite sincere about the proudly participating bit. I mentioned this group in a previous post and in the weeks since have had a chance to get together with them a few more times. It's still small and highly informal, which is good for the time being. There are a couple of strong personalities providing most of the direction and a fair chunk of the courage but there's still a need and opportunity for everybody to contribute to a level which suits them.
Prior to my involvement this mob had been meeting for only a few months yet had already had meetings with a number of high-profile politicians including Peter Garret. Although formally apolitical there's naturally a strong sympathy for many of the policies and activities of the Greens. One of our group members donned a bear suit for the "Walk Against Warming" and added a lot of colour to the event - even running up and hugging Bob Brown, so I'm told.
On Sunday week ago a number of us went for a brief tour of the local Kingfisher Recycling Centre which was established by one of our group in the 1980's and is today a world leader in community-based materials recycling and work provision programs for people with a reduced work capacity. It's inspirational stuff.
Then on Thursday night we held our first public forum with guest speakers: one man who's at the forefront of hot rock geothermal power generation in Australia (if not the world) and another who's a recognised authority in energy-efficiency and renewable energy technologies in general. There wasn't a huge turnout but there were enough to make us all feel that the night was worthwhile with plenty of opportunity to improve in the future.
For my part I've agreed to help promote our activities by providing information to various online events diaries. Mr S and I have also volunteered to host a little information stand at an upcoming event where we'll demonstrate a lot of the things we're doing towards sustainability in our own homes. He's even gone so far as to get us playing with video cameras to try and produce some short demo clips which we can upload to YouTube.
If anybody local is reading this and wants to get involved, I'd love to hear from you. The group meets approximately every second Wednesday in Chermside and we're looking to host some kind of event approximately on the first Sunday afternoon of each month.
Watch this space, more info coming soon.
Yes I'm having a bit of a joke about the name, but I'm quite sincere about the proudly participating bit. I mentioned this group in a previous post and in the weeks since have had a chance to get together with them a few more times. It's still small and highly informal, which is good for the time being. There are a couple of strong personalities providing most of the direction and a fair chunk of the courage but there's still a need and opportunity for everybody to contribute to a level which suits them.
Prior to my involvement this mob had been meeting for only a few months yet had already had meetings with a number of high-profile politicians including Peter Garret. Although formally apolitical there's naturally a strong sympathy for many of the policies and activities of the Greens. One of our group members donned a bear suit for the "Walk Against Warming" and added a lot of colour to the event - even running up and hugging Bob Brown, so I'm told.
On Sunday week ago a number of us went for a brief tour of the local Kingfisher Recycling Centre which was established by one of our group in the 1980's and is today a world leader in community-based materials recycling and work provision programs for people with a reduced work capacity. It's inspirational stuff.
Then on Thursday night we held our first public forum with guest speakers: one man who's at the forefront of hot rock geothermal power generation in Australia (if not the world) and another who's a recognised authority in energy-efficiency and renewable energy technologies in general. There wasn't a huge turnout but there were enough to make us all feel that the night was worthwhile with plenty of opportunity to improve in the future.
For my part I've agreed to help promote our activities by providing information to various online events diaries. Mr S and I have also volunteered to host a little information stand at an upcoming event where we'll demonstrate a lot of the things we're doing towards sustainability in our own homes. He's even gone so far as to get us playing with video cameras to try and produce some short demo clips which we can upload to YouTube.
If anybody local is reading this and wants to get involved, I'd love to hear from you. The group meets approximately every second Wednesday in Chermside and we're looking to host some kind of event approximately on the first Sunday afternoon of each month.
Watch this space, more info coming soon.
Sunday 9 September 2007
Giving up the pot
While we're on the subject of addictions...
Just kidding. I'm tired and it seemed funny at the time. This is about plant pots, more particularly their absence.
Some of those little capsicum plants which we grew from fresh seed as a random experiment have really flourished in the recent wet and warming weather. Many of the others were starting to show signs of stress, presumably from overcrowding. Today I decided it was time to try our first bit of in-ground planting.
There's an existing garden bed very near to where the capsicum seedlings have been growing. The previous owner of this house put some effort into improving the soil but over the past two years that bed has been totally taken over by something that might be aloe vera. This afternoon I removed a pile of them and cleared about two square meters of the bed.
On top of that I put a layer of compost - my first significant use of the stuff which I've been brewing up in the back of the yard. Michelle and I transplanted about six really strong-looking seedlings and four more which were the best of the rest from the pot into the compost. Then all around them went a layer of the mulch which I made two weekends ago.
It's pretty simple stuff, really, but apart from some really naive poking about when I was a kid this is the first time I've done anything like this: growing seedlings in a pot, making compost, making mulch, planting out a garden bed. To be honest I'm half expecting the plants to die but that's all fine in the spirit of an experiment.
Thankfully our lives don't (yet?) depend on a good capsicum harvest in the back garden. But with a bit of luck we'll have some of our favourite salad fruits from our own crop on the table and the BBQ this summer.
Just kidding. I'm tired and it seemed funny at the time. This is about plant pots, more particularly their absence.
Some of those little capsicum plants which we grew from fresh seed as a random experiment have really flourished in the recent wet and warming weather. Many of the others were starting to show signs of stress, presumably from overcrowding. Today I decided it was time to try our first bit of in-ground planting.
There's an existing garden bed very near to where the capsicum seedlings have been growing. The previous owner of this house put some effort into improving the soil but over the past two years that bed has been totally taken over by something that might be aloe vera. This afternoon I removed a pile of them and cleared about two square meters of the bed.
On top of that I put a layer of compost - my first significant use of the stuff which I've been brewing up in the back of the yard. Michelle and I transplanted about six really strong-looking seedlings and four more which were the best of the rest from the pot into the compost. Then all around them went a layer of the mulch which I made two weekends ago.
It's pretty simple stuff, really, but apart from some really naive poking about when I was a kid this is the first time I've done anything like this: growing seedlings in a pot, making compost, making mulch, planting out a garden bed. To be honest I'm half expecting the plants to die but that's all fine in the spirit of an experiment.
Thankfully our lives don't (yet?) depend on a good capsicum harvest in the back garden. But with a bit of luck we'll have some of our favourite salad fruits from our own crop on the table and the BBQ this summer.
My body goes green
(You're actually reading a post with a title like this? Ew... you're gross...)
Some time ago I made a non-core promise that for the sake of reducing my ecological footprint in terms of water and land use, methane production, oil consumption and waste generation I'd restrict the amount of Ice Break I consume to 375ml per day. Of course I have to call it a non-core promise now because I've utterly failed to keep it. But that's OK if you rename a broken commitment and call it an NCP.
Unfortunately for my vast network of Ice Break suppliers, my body appears to have a higher standard of ethics than that.
I have a heart condition which basically comes down to not being good at keeping a steady rhythm. Lately it's been getting worse. Much worse. And I noticed a pattern - it was worst on the days when I had consumed the most Ice Break. A little bit of experimenting seems to have confirmed that if I drink more than the allocated 375ml in a day I get bad arrhythmia.
In terms of values driving behavioural changes my addiction has so far proven stronger than the idea of preventing some cow farts and giving VISY a few less bottles to recycle. But if drinking less Ice Break is going to stop my heart from skipping like an epileptic wallaby while I'm trying to go to sleep at night then the country air's going to be just that little bit cleaner from now on.
Some time ago I made a non-core promise that for the sake of reducing my ecological footprint in terms of water and land use, methane production, oil consumption and waste generation I'd restrict the amount of Ice Break I consume to 375ml per day. Of course I have to call it a non-core promise now because I've utterly failed to keep it. But that's OK if you rename a broken commitment and call it an NCP.
Unfortunately for my vast network of Ice Break suppliers, my body appears to have a higher standard of ethics than that.
I have a heart condition which basically comes down to not being good at keeping a steady rhythm. Lately it's been getting worse. Much worse. And I noticed a pattern - it was worst on the days when I had consumed the most Ice Break. A little bit of experimenting seems to have confirmed that if I drink more than the allocated 375ml in a day I get bad arrhythmia.
In terms of values driving behavioural changes my addiction has so far proven stronger than the idea of preventing some cow farts and giving VISY a few less bottles to recycle. But if drinking less Ice Break is going to stop my heart from skipping like an epileptic wallaby while I'm trying to go to sleep at night then the country air's going to be just that little bit cleaner from now on.
Sunday 26 August 2007
And while we're outside...
I snapped a few more pics around the back yard to show you.
First, some actual news: I GOT ONE OF MY TANKS IN PLACE! It's amazing to see it sitting there so neatly and to think back through the amount of effort that's gone into converting a garden bed full of lilies (which I dug out and kept), manure-enriched soil (which I dug out, sieved and kept) and a tree (which I chopped down, dug out and eventually mulched most of) into the besser brick and crusher dust base on which it rests.
The other end of the house isn't quite so satisfying yet. Oh well.
I've mentioned once or twice that to help reduce the amount of solar heating on the western side of the house I installed some shade screens. Initially it was just in front of our bedroom window (the middle screen in the photo) but it made such a difference I bought two more for my study (nearest) and what is now Asha's bedroom. Am considering one or two more for the other end of the house but we never really notice much heat coming through the walls up there.
Last thing to show you is what we've got growing. All in pots so far as we're just getting started and haven't prepared any permanent beds yet.
In the first pic we have two rows of carrots (can you tell that 5-year-old girls were responsible for "lightly sprinkling" seeds along the centre?) and a whole crowd of capsicum plants plus a seedling pot from which a bean vine will hopefully emerge soon.
The second pic is the three cherry tomato plants in their climbing pot, looking a bit battered after the wild weather this week but covered in green berries and still flowering.
Finally our three little strawberry plants which were given to us by one of Michelle's scrapbooking friends.
First, some actual news: I GOT ONE OF MY TANKS IN PLACE! It's amazing to see it sitting there so neatly and to think back through the amount of effort that's gone into converting a garden bed full of lilies (which I dug out and kept), manure-enriched soil (which I dug out, sieved and kept) and a tree (which I chopped down, dug out and eventually mulched most of) into the besser brick and crusher dust base on which it rests.
The other end of the house isn't quite so satisfying yet. Oh well.
I've mentioned once or twice that to help reduce the amount of solar heating on the western side of the house I installed some shade screens. Initially it was just in front of our bedroom window (the middle screen in the photo) but it made such a difference I bought two more for my study (nearest) and what is now Asha's bedroom. Am considering one or two more for the other end of the house but we never really notice much heat coming through the walls up there.Last thing to show you is what we've got growing. All in pots so far as we're just getting started and haven't prepared any permanent beds yet.
In the first pic we have two rows of carrots (can you tell that 5-year-old girls were responsible for "lightly sprinkling" seeds along the centre?) and a whole crowd of capsicum plants plus a seedling pot from which a bean vine will hopefully emerge soon.
The second pic is the three cherry tomato plants in their climbing pot, looking a bit battered after the wild weather this week but covered in green berries and still flowering.
Finally our three little strawberry plants which were given to us by one of Michelle's scrapbooking friends.
Mulch ado about nothing
If you've read a few of my previous posts you'd hopefully know that I'm strongly in favour of reducing the amount of manufactured goods we purchase, selecting locally-made quality items when it's necessary to buy something and using my own muscles in preference to power tools. But sometimes the practicality of the situation is that you really don't have much choice.
This weekend I bought a mulcher. It was made in China, which is generally considered to have some of the worst industrial practices in the world in terms of environmental impact and social justice. It came in a box with styrofoam, plastic bags and bubble-wrap. Large portions of the product itself are made of plastic which is probably not recyclable. Oh, and it can use as much electricity in about two and half hours as the rest of the house does in a whole day (not counting hot water).
So what was I thinking?
Well there's a lot growing in our back yard including a couple of monster palm trees which drop enormous fronds on a regular basis. We have hibiscus bushes and on three sides a border of sheena's gold, all of which need to be trimmed frequently or they get out of hand. In order to make room for tank #1 I had to remove (by hand) one small tree and while I was at it I removed another (by hand) which had established itself in what is ostensibly the vege garden. Both of the trees, a half dozen fronds and a heap of prunings all piled together were starting to look like a fabulous snake refuge for the coming summer.
In rural areas and in times past, people would simply burn much of this material either as fuel or simply to get rid of it. That's not permitted in cities like Brisbane (for good reason). Here, this material is considered "waste" and so it is subjected to the same general rule which applies for other waste - it gets transported to a central waste transfer station and "processed". If I don't want my garden trimmings rotting in landfill I have to put them in a trailer and drive more than 15 minutes each way to drop them off myself - or pay somebody else to make the trip for me.
But I don't see this material as waste. It's a resource which I want to use here as compost or mulch. I tried for a while stripping the green leaves from the hibiscus prunings by hand so as to make a suitable material for compost, but in the end it just wasn't working. And how am I supposed to manually make mulch from those huge palm fronds?
In a bygone era there might have been mulching machines which could be powered by hand (or foot, or horse... or children). I very much doubt I could track one of those down these days. In the end there wasn't much choice. I had to go with what's available.
One aspect of the decision was easy: I wanted an electric one rather than something with a petrol engine, because I know I can buy 100% of my electricity from renewable, non-polluting sources. Beyond that it was just a question of choosing something that would get the job done. And I have to say... well actually no, I won't "say" anything. I'll just let the results speak for themselves.
This weekend I bought a mulcher. It was made in China, which is generally considered to have some of the worst industrial practices in the world in terms of environmental impact and social justice. It came in a box with styrofoam, plastic bags and bubble-wrap. Large portions of the product itself are made of plastic which is probably not recyclable. Oh, and it can use as much electricity in about two and half hours as the rest of the house does in a whole day (not counting hot water).So what was I thinking?
Well there's a lot growing in our back yard including a couple of monster palm trees which drop enormous fronds on a regular basis. We have hibiscus bushes and on three sides a border of sheena's gold, all of which need to be trimmed frequently or they get out of hand. In order to make room for tank #1 I had to remove (by hand) one small tree and while I was at it I removed another (by hand) which had established itself in what is ostensibly the vege garden. Both of the trees, a half dozen fronds and a heap of prunings all piled together were starting to look like a fabulous snake refuge for the coming summer.In rural areas and in times past, people would simply burn much of this material either as fuel or simply to get rid of it. That's not permitted in cities like Brisbane (for good reason). Here, this material is considered "waste" and so it is subjected to the same general rule which applies for other waste - it gets transported to a central waste transfer station and "processed". If I don't want my garden trimmings rotting in landfill I have to put them in a trailer and drive more than 15 minutes each way to drop them off myself - or pay somebody else to make the trip for me.
But I don't see this material as waste. It's a resource which I want to use here as compost or mulch. I tried for a while stripping the green leaves from the hibiscus prunings by hand so as to make a suitable material for compost, but in the end it just wasn't working. And how am I supposed to manually make mulch from those huge palm fronds?
In a bygone era there might have been mulching machines which could be powered by hand (or foot, or horse... or children). I very much doubt I could track one of those down these days. In the end there wasn't much choice. I had to go with what's available.
One aspect of the decision was easy: I wanted an electric one rather than something with a petrol engine, because I know I can buy 100% of my electricity from renewable, non-polluting sources. Beyond that it was just a question of choosing something that would get the job done. And I have to say... well actually no, I won't "say" anything. I'll just let the results speak for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)