Please read this first...

If you want to know what I'm on about in the shortest time then please read the introductory first post and my current action plan. Comments are very welcome. And if you like this blog, please tell a friend. Thanks!

Sunday, 26 August 2007

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.


Saturday, 25 August 2007

Rain delays play

The base for tank #1 is too wet to finish levelling and compacting the crusher dust. The site for tank #2 is a sticky, muddy quagmire that's very easy to dig but too soft for reliable border building.

The "Walk Against Warming" march was supposed to be ironic with everybody holding aloft their umbrellas in the sunshine. That point's going to be a bit lost in the present conditions.

On the positive side, I've discovered that I have another six months before I'm required to finish the installation of these tanks and still qualify for $850 worth of Brisbane City Council rebates. We have to register our application by the end of September but don't have to complete it all until the end of March next year.

Tuesday, 21 August 2007

Colin knows what you want

Now here's a story which might convince people environmentally-friendly living is actually something they want to do. No Impact Man touts the benefits he and his wife have experienced as a result of their experiment - including a cure for dandruff and no more period pains.

That's a pitch which might change a few behaviours!

Monday, 20 August 2007

Tell me what you want, what you really really want

This is something I've been struggling to write for a couple of weeks now. I'm not entirely happy with it but it's hopefully better than nothing. With the caveat that I'm not trained in psychology or sociology or anything like that, let's dive right in...

The basic idea is this: all of the greenies, the conservationists, the environmentalists, the reduce/reuse/recyclers, the peak oilers, everybody who wants everybody else to voluntarily change their behaviour in some way, has to understand that their struggle is not primarily with behaviours but with values.

Value decisions drive behaviours. I wrote this about six weeks ago:
It seems to me that the primary driver for personal behaviour must surely be personal values. If so, that would imply that my failure to change behaviour in personal matters (such as limiting my Ice Break consumption as I had committed to do) comes down to a question of my own values. That I value the experience of drinking coffee-flavoured milk more highly than the environmental benefits gained by reducing my consumption. And that would probably be because the benefits of drinking it are personal, immediate and known whereas the benefits of reducing consumption are dispersed, delayed and unknown.
There's a famous TV psychologist who nailed the issue with his often-repeated question, "What's in it for you?" People don't just do random things. They tend do the things which they believe will meet the needs or desires which are most pressing within them.

Needs and desires is a tricky subject. Another famous guy by the name of Jeremiah is purported to have written, "The heart is deceitful above all things... who can understand it?" Well, a bloke called Maslov took a good stab at it with A Theory Of Human Motivation (here) from which is derived his Hierarchy of Needs (here with illustration).

We get even more complicated when we consider that we can, with varying degrees of effectiveness, redefine and reprioritise our needs and desires by adopting just about any other moral, ethical or value principle you could possibly conceive of.

The majority of these are older than we are and are imparted to us through our family, friends and broader society. Sometimes a new or derivative principle comes along, like the famous "land rights for gay whales" slogan, which we might see fit to adopt.

Some of these ideas - especially religious ones - become almost as deeply ingrained as the needs which Maslov described, and can take such a high priority that people are literally willing to die for a cause.

Let's get visual here for all you right-brainers with a diagram I just whipped up...

I hope that's making some kind of sense. People do stuff because of what they care about. If you want people to do different stuff you need to either get them to care about the same things you do, or convince them that what you want them to do is somehow aligned with their own most pressing needs and desires.

Now to bring this all back into context and finish up...

I started with a statement about attempts to bring about voluntary changes in behaviour. That's really directed at anybody (myself included) who wishes to inspire "grassroots" or community-based action regarding climate change or sustainability. It's a really tough job and we need to be clear what we're up against.

The other aspect to bringing about widespread change is the use of the law. The law is (supposed to be) a codification of the agreed values of a society and has a couple of unique strengths in regarding to upholding values:
- laws can be designed to counteract our bias towards personal, immediate and known benefits
- any value written into law is reinforced by Maslov's safety needs which incline most people towards civil obedience

Changing laws in a democratic society is generally achieved by demonstrating that a certain set of values is held in common by a majority (or an influential minority) of the people. It's a different fight.

As I think about the year 2050 and what kind of civilisation I hope we will have, I see a society in which the core values associated with environmentally sustainable (or even beneficial!) human society are broadly accepted and expressed in law so as to guide individuals as well as commerce and industry in behaviours which will meet our most important needs not only today but for the very long term.


And maybe a world in which I never ever ever quote the Spice Girls again.

Sunday, 19 August 2007

Hard yakka in the rain. Glorious!

Since about lunch time today we've had fairly constant light rain. The BOM says about 10mm has fallen since 9AM. If I had my tanks installed that'd be about two thousand litres captured.

They're not installed yet, of course, but I'm working on it. Yesterday I ordered some crusher dust to use in completing the base for my tanks. I did some calculations and worked out I needed just a touch over one cubic meter of the stuff to form the base and ordered one and a half since it's better to have too much than too little in this kind of situation.

Today it arrived, all two tonnes or so of it dumped in our front yard. Caitlin (my almost-six year old daughter) and I spent a good couple of hours working in the rain to shift nearly half of it down to the end of the house and into the excavated area. We added more water using the hose (the rain was really very light) and I compacted it using a very simple but distinctly heavy tool borrowed from a neighbour. Square bit of metal with a long metal rod sticking up from the centre of it, lift it up, bang it down, hundreds of times.

It's so different to the kind of "work" I do during the week that I'm thoroughly enjoying myself... and thoroughly stuffed tonight. I can't show you a pic of the result because I didn't want to get the camera wet. But I'm very proud of the effort and of having persisted with it even in the rain. Not that I'm complaining about the rain of course.

In the next couple of days I'm hoping to do a final level and compact at that end of the house and finally get that tank into place where it's meant to be. Have a niggling concern that what with all the geometry changes due to choosing and siting the border bricks it's going to be a fraction too small. But hey... it's only more work to do.

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Don't OVERFEED the worms

I might have mentioned it previously, but I've been wondering why the worm farm instructions make such a big point of not overfeeding the worms without explaining why it's a concern or how you know when you're giving them too much food.

You might have realised this before now but sometimes I'm not very smart. Especially when the answer is a really simple one.

If you give worms too much food... they don't eat it all and it goes bad. Humans and worms both want to stay away when this happens.

I'm quite happily forgiving myself for not getting this right on the first go. There's no sign that any worms have suffered as a result. Hopefully all that's necessary is to dump out the bad stuff and try again with smaller amounts - which is what I've done.

Learned a number of small things along the way too...
- carrot tops can sprout when kept in a dark, moist, nutrient-rich environment
- compost worms don't appear to be able to bite raw carrot very well
- a few vinegar flies is not a problem, but lots of them indicates a problem
- compost worms prefer food that has been really finely chopped, but not blended
- the little critters can move surprisingly quick when they want to

Action stations!

Mr S sent me a link to the Big Switch campaign website the other day. It's an initiative of Greenpeace with support from quite a number of conservation groups and a couple of business organisations. It aims to promote grass-roots community action on climate change and use that as leverage to pressure individual federal politicians into ratifying Kyoto, committing to significant emissions reductions by 2020, committing to significant renewable energy production by 2020 and establishing a national emissions trading scheme.

I gave it some thought and decided to participate. My details are registered and I've sent an email to my local member of parliament. But I was most interested in the community group aspect of the campaign.

My electorate (called "Petrie" even though it does not include the actual suburb of the same name) is bizarrely-shaped with the northern and southern halves having almost nothing to do with each other. Through the Big Switch site I discovered that there's a Redcliffe Climate Action Group but I have no intention of driving all the way up there to be part of it.

Thankfully there's another group based in the adjacent electorate of Lilley, going by the (possibly temporary) name of the Brisbane North Climate Action Group. This looked like a much better fit.

So Mr S and I went along - car pooling - to a meeting of the BNCAG this evening. What a fascinating bunch of people they (we) are. A dozen in total, a handful of whom started getting together about two months ago. Highly informal, friendly, and motivated to actually do something about reducing our community's impact on the Earth, and in particular on the climate.

It's very early days. Almost embryonic, you might say. But I'm hoping that this might be the opportunity I've been looking for to get involved and make a meaningful contribution to the future of civilisation.

Next meeting in a fortnight. I'll keep you posted.

Sunday, 12 August 2007

Progress on the tanks

This weekend I finally got the second and third sides of the in-ground brick border done for the first of my two tanks. The third side is visibly straighter and more level than the second, which in turn looks positively professional compared to the first. Oh well. They'll do the job. That is, if I ever get it all finished - which at this rate is a bit of a concern.

There were a couple of interesting things that came out of today's work. First, I now not only know what a cold chisel is but have purchased and used one so that a brick can butt up smoothly against the concrete apron around the house. And second, I'm now aware that when a brick company describes bricks as being 400mm wide and 200mm high, that includes 10mm of non-brick (ie, empty air) in each dimension to allow for the concrete which typically is found in between each brick. Of course my brickwork includes no concrete and so the result is not quite what I had expected it to be.

Am pleased to note that the advertised width of the brick includes no non-brick components.

Sunday, 5 August 2007

What's the vision?

Something I've been asking myself for some time now is why 2050vision.blogspot.com is so devoid of any clear vision about what a sustainable civilisation might (or should) look like in 43 years time. I don't even have a "vision" label defined yet to apply to a new post. Either I need to come up with something or I need to change the name of the blog.

I guess to date I've been trying to understand some of the issues the world is facing, exploring some of the possible responses and finding out from my own experience what are some of the barriers to change. I've focused largely on energy-related concerns and discovered how easy it is to reduce electricity consumption but how hard it is to break the chains of oil dependence for transport. I've become horrified by our society's concept of "waste" and "waste management". And, at the age of thirty, have just started to learn the language of soil, plants and living systems which was second nature to countless generations of humanity before me.

It's probably a good time to start bringing ideas from all those areas together and forming some kind of picture of a desirable future. I say only "desirable" because it would be foolish to declare something "likely" or even "possible" based on my limited study and the uncertainties surrounding those big issues of peak oil and climate change. But I'm going to try and work on some thoughts of my own as well as link to other people's ideas for the future.

For the next post, though, I will have to revisit some ideas which I'm told I did a bloody poor job of communicating in my first attempt: the subject of human motivation, or why we do anything at all.

Monday, 30 July 2007

Stats update (with comments)

The latest figures are for 9 days from 21st to 30th July:
- General electricity 5.36kWh per day (average 6.65 this quarter vs 7.98 last quarter)
- Electricity for water heating 7.01kWh per day (average 7.33 this quarter vs 5.60 last quarter)
- Water consumption 301 litres per day (average 333 this quarter)

We were away on Saturday night so the figures are slightly skewed in our favour but they're still not bad. Our water use is holding steady at about 330L per day even without the tanks installed yet. The government's high-profile target is 140L per person per day. Our kids are young but even if you considered the three of them as equivalent to one person we'd still be 90L under the target.

I'm baffled as to how other households can use as much water as they do. We use our dishwasher, we wash our clothes (lots of them with the three kids), we water our fledgling vege plants, we are pretty lax about shower times. Our conservation efforts could largely be summed up like this:
- use the "water saver" options on the dishwasher and washing machine
- don't be obviously wasteful with washing hands or brushing teeth
- keep the water pressure low in the shower
- and the big one... don't flush the toilet for every little wee

Julie pointed out just recently that using less electricity can also contribute to reduced water consumption. (Though that's not true of wind, wave or solar photovoltaic systems, it is the case for the vast majority of electricity generated in Australia.) So I'll get on to electricity now.

Obviously we use more energy heating water in winter than we do in summer. That's why there's an obvious seasonal variation in the graphs I've previously shared. So although this quarter's figure of 7.33 is up against last quarter, it's significantly better than the 9.0 we consumed during the same quarter last year. And I reckon this winter is actually colder!

The water/electricity relationship goes both ways here: by using less hot water in the shower we're reducing our energy demand.

One last comment on these figures. With our continuing downwards trend in general electrical consumption, this is the first quarter in nearly two years of data where we're using less energy for lights, cooking, computers etc than we are for heating water.

Thursday, 26 July 2007

The cat's away...

... and the mice are playing in the compost again.

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

The compost bin comeback

Found another surprise in the compost bin today... a pleasant one this time.

As happy as I am about my first thousand worms, they aren't eating a lot of kitchen scraps yet. I'm guessing that's partly because they're so (relatively) few in number and partly because they still have lots of other food to consume in their initial bedding material. Most of what I provided for them on Saturday is still there and our little bucket in the kitchen was full. Well the scraps had to go somewhere and it sure wasn't going to be landfill, so out to the compost bin I went.

Sometime in the past couple of weeks I had decided the compost pile was too dry. I started experimenting with a new formula: one bucket of kitchen scraps spread out, a layer of dried grass clippings and finally one kitchen bucket's worth of water on top. After making this contribution again this afternoon it seemed like I should aerate the pile a bit and make sure it's not going nasty in the middle.

Well! Far from being nasty, what I found in the middle of the pile looked suspiciously like the stuff I'd seen on the glossy front cover photograph of my neighbour's composting book. It was dark, moist, spongy, inhabited by tiny bugs and earthworms, and it gave off a noticeable amount of heat. No visible rodents, either.

Perhaps I should have left it alone, but I used my garden fork to try and mix things up. There's plenty of material still to be decomposed and I'm hoping that introducing some air and those additional nutrients into the core will help it rather than hinder. This coming weekend I'll turn the whole pile again and see what I find.

If that kind of result is repeatable, and the mice stay away, I may keep the bin going in addition to the worm farm.

Monday, 23 July 2007

Worms: not dead yet

Peeked under the layer of wet newspaper which is on top of the food in the upper tray and found a few adventurous worms munching away. They slithered away to the tray below in a hurry.

Lifting off the top tray to the full bedding tray below, the kids were delighted to see scores of worms all over the top. Startled to be exposed all of a sudden they practically sprinted for cover down their holes. Didn't know they could move quite that quick.

Seems to be pretty straightforward so far, except that I've got a whole lot of scraps in the kitchen - far more than these worms seem ready to eat. Will have to use the compost bin as well for a while I think.

Sunday, 22 July 2007

I have worms

Funny thing: you buy a "Can-O-Worms" but the worms are sold separately. But anyway, as of yesterday I have one of the first and around a thousand of the second, and a hundred and ten fewer dollars in my bank account. That's eleven cents per worm.

The worm farm itself deserves a bit of a plug, I think. For starters it appears to be a really good design. It has legs, a fluid collection base with tap, three "working trays" and a lid. The theory is that when the top tray gets full the bottom tray will contain heaps of fertiliser and very few worms so you just empty the bottom one and then place it at the top. As you add food to the top the worms come up through the holes and begin creating more fertiliser there. Round and round it goes.

It is made of plastic, but it's made of 100% post-consumer recycled plastic. As with my decision to use concrete blocks as part of the base for my water tanks, I think it's an appropriate use of materials. It's hard to imagine something like this being made from anything other than plastic or metal - of which plastic seems like the less wasteful choice. We do have an enormous amount of existing plastic which would otherwise be headed for a landfill. And unlike many other plastic products this one's designed to perform a valuable function over a long period of time.

Moreover, it's made in Australia and there's very little packaging to be "disposed of" after the purchase. You can check out the model I bought here.

Worms are sold separately, as I mentioned. I grabbed a box of a thousand from the shelf right next to the Can-O-Worms. Good thing, too - it turns out that a thousand worms is the minimum recommended number for starting a worm farm. The worms aren't loose in the box, they're buried in a lump of moist, compost-y black stuff which you just place as-is into the worm farm. Once they've eaten through all the tasty parts of that they will, I understand, squirm up through the holes into the next tray in search of the food scraps I've laid out for them.

For the time being they seem content to stay in the bottom tray in their black stuff. Just to prove I'm not making all this up, here's a pic I snapped late this afternoon.

Bricks it is, then.

Besser blocks model 15.01, to be precise. 40cm long, 15cm wide, 20cm high. Six of them to a side on three sides, the fourth side being the edge of the concrete apron around the house. 18 per tank site, 36 blocks in all, delivered for $156.20. About the same price as the equivalent quantity of pine sleepers soaked in copper, chrome and arsenic.

They were delivered late yesterday and today I spent a few hours sculpting the trench in which the first six of them now sit. I say "sculpting" because below the turf in my back yard is a whole lot of very dense clay. Using my 150mm spade and a mini-mattock I carved out a surprisingly neat rectangular slot. The blocks went in with a little clay soil packed into the slight gaps along the long sides. The goal is to build a nice rigid wall that will hold a base of crusher dust firmly in place beneath a five tonne water tank. The clay is so solid I'll probably not use any additional concrete to bed the blocks as I had planned.



If it takes a few hours to get one side done, I have an awful lot of hard work remaining. It would have been so much easier just to pour two slabs of concrete - and probably cheaper given that I have a builder, an underground cable layer and a concreter as neighbours. Why the heck am I spending my weekends scratching about in the clay?

The primary environmental concern with concrete is the energy used in manufacturing cement. I read somewhere yesterday that 8% of the world's anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas emissions result directly from the production and use of cement. Scary, if it it's true. But concrete is such a practical building material I can understand its appeal: even mixing by hand I could have poured two slabs in an afternoon, and they would easily outlast the tanks they'd be supporting.

In the end I compromised. I needed something heavy, strong and durable for the border; needed to prevent termite damage to my home; wasn't keen on the copper-chrome-arsenic approach. Pre-formed concrete bricks are going to do the job nicely, are non-toxic, and would probably be re-usable in the future if I ever had reason to take them out of the ground. I think it's an acceptable use of resources.

As added bonuses, I've had my kids out "working" with me, I've performed some much-needed physical exercise, and so long as it turns out OK I'll have the satisfaction of knowing I did it with my own hands.

Friday, 20 July 2007

I declare the Weekend of the Worm

Some things were just meant to be. After my mice-infested compost disaster last weekend I've been exchanging comments with Crazy Mumma (her blog here) about the idea of using worms to process kitchen scraps instead of putting them outside where they become food for vermin instead of plants.

CM gave me a link to some instructions on building your own worm farm on the cheap, and now Colin (aka No Impact Man) has just posted his own DIY worm farm tips as well! There's absolutely no excuse left now.

This weekend I'm getting worms. I dare you to join me! (That means you, CM!)

Wednesday, 18 July 2007

Vaguely like eBay, but free!

I love it when I have an idea and then discover it's already a reality. Not only does it mean the idea was probably a decent one, but it means I can enjoy it without having to put in the effort of making it happen.

Case in point: Freecycle.
"The Freecycle Network™ is made up of many individual groups across the globe. It's a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (& getting) stuff for free in their own towns... When you want to find a new home for something -- whether it's a chair, a fax machine, piano, or an old door -- you simply send an e-mail offering it to members of the local Freecycle group. Or, maybe you're looking to acquire something yourself. Simply respond to a member's offer, and you just might get it."

This kind of voluntary community-based recycling via the internet is something I've been idly thinking about over the past couple of weeks. There's a group with 300+ members based in Strathpine (the suburb immediately to the west of where I live) so I've just sent an email off to join up. Hopefully I'll be able to reduce some of the clutter around my place by simply finding better homes for things, and avoid creating "waste" in the process.

Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Spark and Splash Stats for you to use

Spur of the moment thing here. I've been using the free online spreadsheet service at Google Docs for a number of things including tracking my electrical and water consumption. I find it simple and useful and it occurred to me that maybe it's worth sharing.

So I've created a template which you can either download as an Excel file or use online like I do. There are two parts to this.

One sheet lets you record your own meter readings. It shows you your average daily consumption over the period from the first to the last reading. With a little bit of copy and paste work you also get differential figures showing how your consumption changes from reading to reading.

The other sheet is designed to keep track over longer periods based on your utility bills. Enter the date of the bill and the average daily use over the period that bill covers, and you'll get a nice graph for your trouble. I've put two example entries in which you can delete and replace with your own data. As you add new data you'll need to tell the graph to incorporate that as well. It's not hard, but ping me in the comments if you want any help with that.

You need a (free) Google account to use this, and it works best in FireFox from what I can tell. Without any further ado... you can check it out here. You'll need to either export it as a file to your computer or copy it to your own Google account to use online before you're able to change any fields.

Comments and questions would be welcome.

Sunday, 15 July 2007

Renovating for water-efficiency

We bought this place and moved in almost two years ago with the intention of staying for at least twenty. Location, size and price were the key criteria. Water and energy efficiency were not even on the list - if they were we might have chosen not to buy this one.

This post is a bit of a look at the physical attributes of our house in relation to water efficiency and the improvements we're in the process of installing.

The building is basically rectangular with the top edge in this image facing just slightly east of north. It's about 22m long with no eaves at the ends, and about 9m wide including the eaves along each side. Were it a complete rectangle it'd be almost exactly 200 square meters of catchment area.

The roof has a single centre line running the length of the building and falling away to the east and west. There are five downpipes for stormwater drainage - one at each of the corners along the long sides. It doesn't make sense to try and get the water to flow just to one end of the house so two tanks are needed if all the run-off is to be captured. Since I don't have room to install tanks half way up each side of the house, the only alternative is to put them at each end and install pipes to bring the water around the corners.

Siting the tanks was made more difficult by the 1m concrete apron which runs completely around the house. Early ideas involved a new concrete slab which partly overlapped the apron but my more recent preference towards using crushed rock for the base pushed them that meter away. That in turn had an impact on designs for the stormwater pipes which need to be high enough for people to walk safely underneath. In the end they'll be positioned as per the image: it's a compromise between the practical and aesthetic challenges of running the pipes as well as the limits on available space.

The tanks we chose are 5000L each, calculated to hold approximately one month's worth of rainfall in an "average" year. They're made of plastic with a ten year guarantee and I hope to extend their life as much as possible by shading them from direct sunlight. At 2.2m diameter they're only 1.6m tall in the centre and about 1.3m at the inlet. An internal first-flush diverter (it has a dedicated drainage outlet at the side of the tank) will reduce contamination from dust and debris and the inlet filter is designed to take the weight of a child without breaking.

Up until recently (when I was writing up a comment on another blog) I had envisaged using one tank solely for gardening and the other for washing clothes and flushing the toilet. But after realising that Julie's tank, half the size of mine and with comparable inflow expectations, would make available something like 160L/day just for the garden I had to reconsider that approach. Our block is flat so I'm now looking at installing a permanent hose between ground-level outlets on each tank: this will allow the two tanks to function as a single 10kL reservoir.

In order to supply the toilet (thankfully there is just one, dual-flush) and the washing machine the plan is to install a small electric pump and two new taps - one in the toilet, one in the laundry. We'll manually attach the hoses to those taps when there's water available in the tanks, and manually switch them over to the town water supply when the tanks are running low. Doing this should avoid any problems with backflow or pressure and makes a top-up valve unnecessary. Both rooms are on the western side roughly two-thirds up.

If the tanks do end up linked together it would probably make sense to install an external pump-powered tap at the northern end near the gardens. And a tap over the laundry sink might be smart as a way to access tank water for other internal uses like filling our gravity-fed water filter or even just mopping the floor.

So after all of that, our two remaining consumers of town water will be the kitchen with its dishwasher and the bath and shower. We'll still be drawing some water from the river systems but hopefully the rain that does fall on our heads will be put to some use instead of being channelled straight out to sea.

Finally I ought to mention cost. A combination of Brisbane City Council and Queensland Government rebates worth $1,850 are applicable to this little project. The only expense so far has been the tanks themselves at about $2,600. I have another thousand dollars set aside to pay for materials, a pump, an electrician and a plumber... though I'm not entirely confident that's going to be enough.

Composting tragedy: a cautionary tale

This is going to be a difficult post to write. It has the potential to be quite disturbing to some people - you probably wouldn't let your kids read this. But it contains an important lesson for anybody interested in composting as a waste reduction strategy.

I wrote yesterday about a couple of different options for suburban composting. I described briefly the open-bottomed black plastic bin which I've been using in my first foray into managed decomposition.

Prompted into effort through the act of blogging (as I tend to be), late this afternoon I set about tending to the pile: turning it, then adding some new material and a bit of water. It's probably not the "right" way to go about things but I'm new to this.

The easiest way to turn a pile that's in a bin like mine is to lift the bin off the top, put it down next to the pile and start putting the pile back into it so that what was on the top ends up on the bottom and vise versa. So far, my compost pile is a mixed bag in terms of original material and current condition. Some of it looks really rich and vital, some is dry or woody. Not surprisingly the earth right at the bottom tends to be dark, moist and rich-looking. Since I'm transferring the pile between the same two locations each time I turn it, I have a habit of digging the shovel in a bit and moving some of that rich soil/compost into the active bin.

Today, that underlying soil was a lot more alive than I'd reckoned on. My shovel's blade went straight into a nest full of young mice.

I had read about the risk of mice or rats being attracted to compost bins. Prior to today I'd not seen any here, but while I was turning the top parts of the pile over two or three had dashed out to safety. I'd felt disappointed but somewhat resigned, and suddenly the neighbour's cat's recent tendency to camp out in this corner of my yard made a lot of sense. With those few out of the way I hadn't for a moment considered there'd be more beneath the ground.

Startled by a nest of vermin, and with some awful injuries already inflicted, my immediate reaction was to end the matter as quickly as possible. I don't know whether it was the right thing to do, and I'm not going to use this post to try and argue it either way, but I hated doing it and have felt sickened by it ever since.

The point of posting about it is to remind you of the obvious: human "wastes" are a rodent's "dinner", and wherever you find people you will also find rats and mice. Recycling our kitchen refuse in a compost bin is a brilliant idea in terms of resource utilisation and efficiency but we're not the only ones interested in those nutrients.

Maybe one of those fancy compost bins I linked to in my earlier post is not such an extravagant idea after all.

Copper, chrome and arsenic - oh my!

After going back and forth for ages I decided that the tanks would be installed on a bed of crushed rock instead of concrete. Cost was a factor, as was my disinclination to contribute even a few more square meters to the concrete jungle of a modern city. (Future archaeologists probably won't view this as the "information age" the way we romantically project. I think it's more likely to be known as the concrete or plastic age. But I digress...)

One disadvantage of the crushed rock option is that unless is it securely restrained it has a tendency to spread out or erode from the edges. The way I've seen people counter this is to construct a border out of sturdy wooden sleepers to contain the rock.

What I hadn't considered until I was exploring my options at the hardware ubermarket this arvo is that in order to prevent the wood from decaying - that is, being eaten by insects, fungus and bacteria the way all non-living wood naturally is - it has to be soaked in a toxic cocktail of copper, chrome and arsenic. That way the things which try and eat the wood will become sick and die, or if they're smart simply be repelled.

Now I'm having to re-think.

Partly I'm concerned about the potential for toxic effects on my family and I. The jury is officially out on whether there is a measurable risk to human health from the use of "treated" wood such as this, but remember I'm building a water supply which I intend to use on surrounding vegetable gardens. It just doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.

The other part of my concern arises from the "waste equals food" philosophy espoused in the book Cradle to Cradle. This book has had a huge influence on me and now it doesn't seem right to take a perfectly good piece of timber and turn it into something which has a short useful life and then becomes toxic waste.

I may end up pouring concrete after all.

Stats update

I haven't exactly been inundated with requests for the latest figures on our electricity and water consumption, and to be honest I haven't been paying close attention since the Centameter went back to Mr S.

But this week Caitlin's class at school is embarking on a month-long project to monitor and hopefully reduce their household water consumption. That's a great prompt to get me out in the cold mornings again reading meters.

The last time I checked the figures was the 19th June, so it's been almost a month. I've been wondering recently whether our consumption would have returned to its previous levels without the daily focus on stats. What I found this morning was encouraging.



Over the past 26 days we averaged 7.01kWh of general electrical consumption. That's a slight decrease compared to the previous figures. Our electricity bill came in mid June and it shows an average over the entire past quarter of 7.98kWh per day so we've definitely improved there.

The stats for water heating are more complex. I was pretty happy with what I'd measured between the 8th of May and the 19th of June: an average of 6.63kWh per day, compared to 5.4 the previous (summer) quarter and 7.2 in the year-ago autumn quarter. But the bill from AGL shows that for the autumn quarter as a whole we actually got down to 5.6! That's a significant improvement.

However... in the past 26 days our hot water heating has accounted for 7.19kWh per day. This is probably to be expected with the persistently cold weather and a relaxing of water use discipline. And it's still well under the previous winter quarter's average of 9.0. Still plenty of winter to come though, so we'll see.

Speaking of water use discipline, our average daily water consumption during the past 26 days has been 379 litres. That's definitely up from the previous six week average of 324. Put it down to longer showers and an increase in the kids' bed-wetting. There's a bright side to the increase though: it gives Caitlin a better chance of seeing some improvement in the second half of her school project.

Saturday, 14 July 2007

Tanks update

First, there's some disturbing tank news from Sydney. I don't approve of this kind of activity - it's a terrible waste of fossil fuel resources and this rate of destruction of mobile phone tower forests is simply not sustainable!

And do you suppose the electricity company will get a rebate for installing a tank at their substation?

Sorry, I shouldn't be amused by that kind of thing but it has a comical aspect I find hard to ignore. So anyway...

Am getting serious this weekend with my water tank installation. First step is to dig out the footing area for the tanks - some 12.5 square meters to a depth of about 150-200mm, and I'm doing it all by hand. Remember I'm an IT guy, not a builder, so this is a big project for me.

If I manage to get that excavated today I'll look at obtaining some treated wood for the borders and some sand and crusher dust for the base tomorrow. My gut feeling is that I'm being overly optimistic there. Will do my best though.

Sunday, 8 July 2007

The best way to decay

I have a large backyard by local standards. Our property is 900sqm and the house etc would probably only cover around a third of that area. So there are plenty of trees and shrubs competing with a fair swathe of grass for the remaining space, all of which yield a fair amount of what some people call "garden waste".

Inside, we eat fresh fruit and vegetables on a daily basis and are producing a steady stream of "kitchen waste".

But of course it's not waste. It's a resource which I want to convert into natural fertiliser for enriching the soil and growing healthy food.

My neighbour generously provided me with one of those simple black plastic open-bottomed compost bins which he said was "surplus to requirements". For the last couple of months I've been feeding it with material from both the garden and the kitchen, turning it all over occasionally and adding a bit of water now and then. There's certainly something biological going on in there... the volume of material keeps shrinking and at times there have been different kinds of larvae and/or worms visible. But I'm not convinced that what's being produced is anywhere near as useful for fertilising my veges as I was hoping for.

The same neighbour also loaned me a book on composting which suggested that making compost effectively requires a lot of material to be combined in exactly the right proportions all in one go and then carefully tended. It was like baking a soufflé or something. And the fellow who gave the talk on BioChar a few weeks back implied a similar thing when he mentioned that "hot composts" are too hard to do right in a regular-sized back yard.

So what should somebody like me do? What about people with smaller yards, or mere balconies and courtyards? Well here are a few options:

BioChar bloke showed us pictures of a method of "cold composting" he was experimenting with, which involved digging a series of shallow pits which you would fill up one by one with whatever material came to hand before moving on to the next one. The theory is that by the time you filled up the last one the first would have decomposed to a degree which made its contents useful elsewhere in your garden and the cycle could continue from there. It still takes up a fair bit of space but doesn't require any financial investment to get started.

Part of the reason that "hot composts" require so much material and effort is that they need the bulk to produce and retain the heat, and they need frequent turning over to ensure proper aeration. There's a fancy compost bin on the market aimed at the suburban non-gardeners like me which uses a combination of insulation to trap heat and an innovative central air tube to try and get the benefits of hot composting without the effort. And it gets a very positive review (link to PDF) from a reputable Australian gardening club.

If you don't have a garden or a large family to produce enough waste to feed a large bin like that, then a worm farm could be the way to go. I was astonished to find that you can buy not only the farms themselves but also boxes of live worms from my local hardware megastore. These commercial kits are relatively cheap (compared to the fancy compost bin anyway) but I've seen instructions in various places for how you could build your own from relatively common bits and pieces.

Worms produce a different kind of fertiliser to compost, and you have to be a little careful with what you feed them (they really don't like onion or citrus, I hear) but if you're growing in pots on a balcony or in a courtyard it's pretty much an ideal solution.

I'm probably going to persist with my current compost bin for a little longer and see if I can't make anything useful of it. If not... I'm tempted by worms because they're cheap, effective, self-renewing and probably something the kids would enjoy. The fancy bin is attractive but I'm not sure if buying another new plastic thing is really the kind of solution I'm looking for.

Yellow thumb

This had to happen at some point. I think I've hurt my tomato plants.

I'm not sure whether I mentioned this in any previous posts, but the nice guy who delivered my new tanks spotted my tomato plants as he walked by them and commented appreciatively about their healthy condition. As a novice gardener I was immediately in awe of his expertise (he recognised the plant on sight!) and so I took his following comment quite seriously: "you just have to make sure they get enough sun otherwise the fruit won't ripen."

Oh! Not enough sun? Well I'd better move them then!

And so I relocated the pot from where these plants had grown from seed to their obviously healthy and vigourous condition, complete with the first tiny green fruit starting to appear, and plonked them firmly into a full-sun position. "There you go," I thought. "Drink up that warm sunlight."

Over the next fortnight I was encouraged to see lots of flowering and the setting of new fruit. But at the same time, things started appearing to be less than ideal overall. Some of the lower branches wilted slightly. Some of the leaves dropped off. And in the past few days, a distinct yellow tinge has appeared through maybe a third to a half of the plants.

I don't know what exactly might be the cause of this. It could be completely normal, for all I know. Or maybe the change in position was harmful. Maybe there's a lack of nutrients, or a less than ideal amount of moisture. But it's worrying.

In my continuing ignorance I have moved the pot back to its original position. I have topped up the pot with some of the nutrient-rich soil I have been excavating from the site where I'll be installing one of my water tanks. I watered that through and then added a layer of dry grass clippings on top as mulch to try and conserve the moisture and protect the soil from the cold, dry winds we've been experiencing recently.

Now I'm just crossing my fingers and watching to see what happens next.

Springback

There's a phenomenon in metal working called "springback". It's something you are probably already familiar with but may never have really thought about. Briefly, it's what a piece of metal might do when you attempt to bend it into a new shape: it will resist the change and spring back partly or completely towards the shape it started in. A guy I used to know worked as a fitter and turner, and he described how part of the skill of his job was to work out how much you had to bend something past where you wanted it to end up, so that it would spring back to the desired position.

It seems to me that similar effect can be seen in human behaviour.

There's a clear imperative upon us all to change our patterns of consumption and resource use. I've blogged about my efforts to conserve energy and water, to reduce waste and to cut down on GHG emissions in various ways. But I'm finding that after the initial pressure is applied to try and re-shape my behaviour there's a clear tendency to spring back towards the old ways again.

It affects different aspects of my behaviour to different degrees. I haven't checked the meters for a while but I think we're doing OK on the energy front. Water consumption will be up a little because with colder weather and plenty of stress from work and our new baby I'm being less disciplined about shower times. My car is now around a thousand kilometres behind my lease target (which is good for the environment and bad for my finances). But when it comes to Ice Break consumption... I'm failing big time.

I'm about as good a psychologist as I am a gardener (which means not very) but all this makes me wonder about the best ways to achieve the changes that we believe are needed to make human life a sustainable and positive component of life on Earth. Changing our behaviour is not really the goal: the responsible use of resources and the elimination of "waste" is the goal. Our behaviour tends to conform to the pressures placed on it. The challenge then is to work out how to maintain the pressure on our behaviour.

It's stretching the analogy a bit, but if I wanted a piece of springy metal to conform to a particular shape one of my options would be to brace it somehow. To trap it in a framework which didn't permit it to spring back to the shape it's naturally inclined to take. What's the equivalent in terms of human behaviour?

Perhaps instead of focusing on my behaviour and trying to convince others to behave like me, I should be putting the effort into changing the frameworks that guide people's behaviour - including my own. Those frameworks include social and personal values, education, policy, law and technology.


----
Hmm... switching mode now from essay to free-thinking blog post as I ponder what I've just been writing.

It seems to me that the primary driver for personal behaviour must surely be personal values. If so, that would imply that my failure to change behaviour in personal matters (such as limiting my Ice Break consumption as I had committed to do) comes down to a question of my own values. That I value the experience of drinking coffee-flavoured milk more highly than the environmental benefits gained by reducing my consumption. And that would probably be because the benefits of drinking it are personal, immediate and known whereas the benefits of reducing consumption are dispersed, delayed and unknown.

I would guess that same comparison could be applied just about universally in regard to the ways we all choose to live our lives. To take it to the extreme, not many of us would voluntarily live a life of poverty and hard labour in order to better the lives of others. Those people who do live lives according to those kinds of principles tend to be venerated rather than emulated.

It all comes down to the question of why we do anything at all, I suppose. For me, at this point in time, the basic motivation is something along the lines of having the best life I can whilst simultaneously promoting the best lives possible for everybody else who lives now and who will live in the future. The attitude is more one of teamwork than of charity, but it's forever difficult to try and balance my quality of life with that of everybody else when both are essentially unquantifiable.

I seem to have settled on some core principles though, including one I mentioned earlier: "the responsible use of resources and the elimination of waste".

I'll leave it there for now. Something to ponder and possibly post about another time.

Saturday, 30 June 2007

Terry, Terry, quite contrerry

"How does your garden grow?"

Well, my tomatoes are flowering like mad and starting to set some fruit:



Plus, a few weeks back we used a couple of capsicums to make dinner - one red, one green. Rather than tossing the cores straight into the compost Michelle suggested that we could try putting the seeds into the pot which had failed to grow any strawberries.

With nothing to lose the kids and I loosened the top centimetre or so of soil and scattered dozens of seeds. Seeds from the red fruit went at one end and seeds from the green one at the other. I turned the soil over a little so that some seeds were buried and others exposed on the surface. Then the pot was placed in the warmest, sunniest spot I could find and we let it go.

For quite a while absolutely nothing happened. There weren't even any weeds since Josh and I had carefully pulled all of them out of this pot when we tried our second batch of strawberry seeds. I figured that either the fruit had been sterilised by radiation treatment or it was a non-viable commercial breed. But a few days ago Michelle went out to hang some washing and noticed a fuzz of unfamiliar green shoots popping up:



They're only small things, I know, but they're a big boost for my morale. And hopefully an important learning experience for my children as they themselves grow up in a society so out of touch with the natural world.

Thursday, 28 June 2007

And now for something completely different

Chris Rhodes has come across some alternative theories about the origin of oil and natural gas, which if correct would somewhat defuse the peak oil time bomb.

Check it out here.

Wednesday, 27 June 2007

Is it just me, or did the world change?

It's only been about three months since I committed myself to the cause of "sustainability". It was largely a response to the despair I found myself sinking into as I was bombarded with bad news about climate change, energy depletion and ecological disaster. Immediately I was stepping outside of my comfort zone and feeling somewhat exposed, a "tall poppy" as we say. In comparison to my regular circle of family, friends and colleagues I suspect I quickly became the most extreme greenie among them.

Such was the initial shock that my own dear wife soon started referring to me as an "eco nazi". It was at least partly deserved - hopefully I'm a little more gracious now about the occasional light left on or a plastic bottle accidentally placed in the landfill bin instead of the recycling - but it helped reinforce my feeling that I was forging new territory.

There months later it feels like nothing of the sort. I've discovered so many people, both online and in real life, who share similar concerns and values but who are doing a far better job of applying those values in their lives and promoting them throughout the community. SBS did their "Eco House Challenge" program, and the ABC has just started "Carbon Cops". Four Corners this week focused on how a very significant chunk of Australia's GHG emissions could be cut through improved energy-efficiency in homes, except that the government appears to be refusing and even blocking action in that direction. Brisbane City Council is set to at least acknowledge the majority of the points raised by a task force report into climate change and peak oil, even if they're watering down their commitment to action on the more politically-sensitive recommendations. There are independent groups and programs springing up all over the place all aimed at reducing GHG emissions, improving energy efficiency, decreasing energy dependence, and so on.

But it was a kind comment by Crazy Mumma this week in response to one of my earlier posts that finally led me to realise that I only thought I was going it alone because I was looking in the wrong direction. Instead of comparing myself to where I've come from I should be looking at where I'm headed, and it turns out there are a whole lot of people there already. Just check out the list of other Aussie bloggers on her site!

In the end I find myself reassured and remotivated. Yes, we're facing a crisis (or three), but it appears that people the world over are getting involved with their communities and actually being effective in bringing about positive change in individuals and entire societies.

That's gotta be a good sign for our prospects in 2050.

Getting tanked!

Working from home today, there was an unexpected knock at the door. Bloke with a truck and a surprise delivery:



That's ten thousand litres of rainwater storage capacity. We weren't expecting these for another month or two. But at least I know what I'm doing this weekend now.

Recovering oil from plastics... in the microwave

Just a quick post before I get started with work for the day.

New Scientist has an article online about a new technique for extracting hydrocarbons (ie, oil) from waste plastics and rubber and the like. Essentially, it just gets cooked in a special microwave which is tuned to the specific frequencies of the hydrocarbon molecules. They heat up, evaporate, and get sucked into a condenser which collects them back into liquid oil.

They don't give any information about how much energy is used in the process compared to how much energy we can extract from the oil (I'm guessing it runs at a loss) but in the long term this approach might have two benefits that I can see.

The first is related to energy. Oil is still an incredibly convenient fuel for transport and we have plenty of plastic and rubber waste which we may be able to "mine" at some stage in the future when naturally-occurring oil becomes too hard (expensive) to get at.

But much more interesting is the ability to cleanly strip plastic and rubber compounds away from other substances: such as removing the insulation from electrical wire and leaving the copper metal exposed. This solves a major problem that existing recycling industries are facing.

Thursday, 21 June 2007

Urban multistorey greenhouses: the future of farming?

Here's a neat bit of visionary thinking for you. The BBC reports on a concept for large-scale food production right in the middle of densely urban areas. Like Manhattan. Or Sydney. Or even Brisbane.

For those not inclined to follow the link, the essential idea is to build a high-rise greenhouse and make it as efficient as possible: capturing solar energy on the roof, reclaiming more energy by burning "waste" material, recycling water throughout the complex and so on.

I'm puzzled about how they're going to provide sufficient light to all those plants to help them thrive. Maybe I'll find out on the project website... will let you know if I come across the answer there.

Tuesday, 19 June 2007

Save the world by burning trees

With everybody going nuts about greenhouse gas "offsets" through the planting of trees which will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, this might sound a little weird. There's a growing interest in how much good we might be able to do by setting trees (and other plant material) on fire.

In the Global Warming context, the problem with using trees to soak up CO2 is that when the trees die they decompose and most of their captured carbon goes back into the atmosphere again, sometimes as methane (CH4) which is a far worse greenhouse gas than is CO2.

Researchers in South America studying the composition of some unnaturally fertile soils have discovered what appears to be large amounts of charcoal deliberately added by indigenous farmers over hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. While initially most excited by the prospect of being able to improve soil productivity by adopting similar approaches elsewhere, people began to realise that this was also a surprisingly simple and effective form of carbon sequestration.

Instead of burning trees and other vegetation in big bonfires which leave just ash, if you reduce the amount of oxygen available to the fire you will convert much of the carbon into solid charcoal - as much as 50% of it. Then you can bury this charcoal in the soil where it appears to remain quite happily for many hundreds of years. Do that in the right kind of soil conditions and you can improve crop yields by up to 800%, or so it's said.

As an added bonus, burning things gives of energy which can be harnessed for other purposes, and even the gases from the fire contain useful compounds which can be captured and processed.

That's about as much detail as I want to go into here but I'll post some links from time to time with new info. If you want to Google, the South American soils are known as "Terra Preta" and the modern process of producing charcoal, energy and chemical compounds all in one hit is being called "BioChar". A local bloke I met on the weekend is doing research on that front and is setting up a website at www.biochar.net. (At the time of writing, that page only displays correctly in Internet Explorer - Safari and FireFox users will need to try again later.)

Brisbane City Council's Action Plan

A couple of months ago I read with great interest a report commissioned by Brisbane City Council and prepared by a special task force which included Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation. The report was to focus on the risks and impacts of climate change and peak oil for Brisbane, and to provide recommendations on what the council should do about it. The task force should be very proud of what they came up with, in my opinion.

There was a bit of press soon after the release of the report when the council met to discuss its response. At the time it sounded like they were pretty much going to ignore the report and dismiss its key recommendations as "wacky". I got somewhat upset about that.

But... council has now released their Plan for Action on Climate Change and Energy and it quite substantially reflects the original report! There are some notable omissions -- ambitious stuff like revolutionary transportation systems and 0% greenhouse gas emissions target for 2050, and contentious stuff like mandatory rainwater tanks and restrictions on pools, air conditioning and car parking. Compared to a "business-as-usual" approach, though, it's a major step in the right direction.

Fortnightly stats

Average daily electricity and water consumption figures for the past two weeks:

320 litres of water (vs 319 the previous week and 423 last quarter);
7.1 kWh of electricity for general use (vs 6.7 the previous week and 8.7 last quarter);
7.1 kWh of electricity for heating water (vs 6.2 the previous week and 5.4 last quarter).

Thursday, 14 June 2007

Would you pay an extra $3 per litre for fuel?

A little while ago I wrote about my very nice but fuel-thirsty car and the arrangement I've entered into which obliges me to drive at least 25,000 km per year in it for another two years. My real issue with that is not so much the CO2 emissions (which can be offset to some degree) but that it's consuming an excessive amount of non-renewable fuel.

As I promised to do in that post I've been looking into my options for switching to something more efficient. The car which has caught my attention is a small four-door with a continuously variable automatic transmission (aka CVT) and fuel economy rated at a very impressive 5.6L/100km. And to my surprise there's actually more headroom in that tiny car than in the one I have now. At about $23,000 on the road I think it'd be a good choice.

But there's a problem with the financial side of things when it comes to the car I have now. The lease company wants thirty grand as a payout, and the car's worth only twenty as a trade-in: so if I want to do this it's going to cost me ten thousand bucks.

What will $10K get me? Well, over the next two years it'll drop my fuel consumption by about three thousand litres, assuming I were to continue to drive the same distance. Divide the one by the other and you get $3.33 per litre as the amount I'd be paying for the sake of using less fuel. (That's ON TOP of the actual cost of fuel at the pump!)

Of course the new car would cost less to purchase and run, so there'd be some compensation along the way. I haven't done the sums yet to work that one out, but I can imagine it still being in the vicinity of $3/litre.

I'm not sure I'm willing - or able - to do that. And besides, there's still the issue of what happens with the old car. A huge amount of energy was consumed making the thing, and it still performs its intended function perfectly well. It probably wouldn't be helping the overall cause to prematurely dispose of it.

So I guess there are three things I can do for the next couple of years to minimise the overall impact of my use of the car I have now:
  1. Drive as efficiently as I possibly can.
  2. Purchase CO2 credits to offset the car's emissions.
  3. Consider whether it's worth paying the tax penalties for not driving 25,000km a year.
That last one would also make the car more valuable at the end of its lease period. Hmmmm.

Monday, 11 June 2007

Some good news about water

Not only did my local area get a substantial soaking during the past week, but it seems that above-average rainfall during May over the Murray-Darling basin was enough to avert a zero-allocation scenario for irrigators which I mentioned in my early post about water concerns.

Saturday, 9 June 2007

Having a lapse

The reduced frequency of blog posting is probably an easy giveaway. I'm "backsliding", to borrow a term from the Christian tradition.

Showers are getting slightly longer. Meters are being read maybe twice a week. Takeaway food has become more common. The little car's fuel economy is well over 10L/100km and the big car's pushing 12. Ice Break consumption has increased again.

I have two ideas about why this may be happening.

First, I'm a perfectionist. I get terribly frustrated if things can't be "right" and I tend to avoid or ignore such things. I'm feeling overwhelmed by the enormity of the challenge of transforming the modern world into a sustainable society -- just try to avoid producing any kind of plastic waste for a whole day and you'll get a feel for how big a job we have ahead of us -- and my personal efforts feel about as effective as an amoeba trying to stop a bulldozer.

And that leads into the second idea. In my work I tend to get de-motivated if I'm always going it alone - I always get more done when working as part of a team. In the context of this sustainability thing I haven't yet found anybody local to "team up" with and that's making it hard to sustain my own momentum.

Tuesday, 5 June 2007

Understanding Energy - Part 2 of 2

Yesterday's bottom line was this: all the Earth's energy comes from the Sun, it provides life with the ability to grow and to modify the materials of the Earth, and the majority of it eventually heads back out into space as waste heat.

The ancient civilisations of places like Egypt and South America seemed to understand this much better than we do today. Modern man knows clever words like "photosynthesis" but has lost the deep understanding that the Sun is ultimately what puts leaves on the trees and life in our bones.

My best guess at why this is comes down to the discovery of fire, and of "non-living" things which could be burned. Of course I'm referring to coal, oil and natural gas.

Fire is a chemical reaction in which energy that was previously holding atoms together to form molecules is released as heat. Because there's a high concentration of heat energy in one place it's possible for us to channel some of it into causing desirable changes (such as pushing a piston in an engine, melting metal in a furnace or cooking food on a BBQ) before it dissipates and becomes "lost".

For many thousands of years the primary source of chemical energy which humans could harness by setting it alight was wood. Trees spend years soaking up solar energy and converting it to chemical energy that holds together the atoms which form the molecules that comprise its living tissues. At this level the connection between the Sun and the energy available to us in a wood fire is still somewhat intuitive. It's fairly obvious that the trees have to grow before they can be burned.

But coal, oil and gas don't have that same obvious relationship to the Sun. Instead of waiting for a tree to grow you can just dig them up and burn them. And what's more, the amount of chemical energy they contain is far greater than in their equivalent weight of wood. The industrial revolution was unleashed upon the world when people started to figure out more sophisticated ways of using that stored chemical energy to cause changes in materials and motion. That revolution never stopped - we are still living it at full throttle today.

There's just one little problem. Do you remember the two rules of the energy game from yesterday's post?

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Whenever energy is used, some of it gets "lost" and can't be used again.

All that energy in oil didn't just magically appear. Scientists are pretty darn sure that coal and oil and natural gas were formed from the accumulation, over hundreds of millions of years, of solar energy converted by plants into chemical energy and then trapped underground in landslides, floods or similar events. That's why they're called "fossil fuels".

It's like the Earth has an internal rechargeable battery. It's capable of storing an unimaginable amount of energy, and it's in a form which is wonderfully convenient for us to use. It took hundreds of millions of years to charge it up, but in the span of a couple of hundred years we've managed to run the battery down to about 50% charge remaining and at this rate it'll be fully exhausted by about the end of this century.

Let me say that again. We've consumed hundreds of millions of years worth of stored solar energy in just a few centuries, and now we're starting to run out.

The discussion about how much fossil fuel energy remains to be dug up and burned is a complicated one and is made worse by the unfortunate side-effect that we call climate change. I'm going to side-step the whole question of exactly when fossil fuels will cease to be able to meet our energy needs for transport and electricity production - but it will inevitably happen. In many parts of the world energy supply is already struggling to keep pace with demand.

But what else is there?

Governments and corporations the world over are turning to "biofuels" to try and compensate for falling oil production. But the math just doesn't add up: the rate of conversion from sunlight to chemical energy is far too slow to allow it to meet the current demand for oil. Besides which, studies seem to show that in many cases you use about as much oil producing the crop (for powering farm machinery etc) as you get back from the crop in the final product, making the whole enterprise a waste of oil and food at this point in time. Technological advances may make the process more efficient in the future, though, so continued research is worthwhile.

Solar photovoltaic technology - which uses tricks of physics to convert sunlight falling on a substance directly into electricity - has a similar problem. The technology keeps getting better but there's a limited amount of the raw materials needed to make the panels and producing them consumes significant amounts of energy. We probably can't produce enough of them and they don't give back enough energy to make them a silver bullet solution to our electricity dependency, but again more research is needed.

Heating water with solar collectors is a no-brainer and I applaud moves from the Queensland government to phase out the old electric-powered type. Wish it would happen sooner.

Using wind to generate electricty (converting kinetic energy from the moving air into electrical energy in the turbine) is also a pretty smart idea. The wind moves because the Sun heats the air, so tapping into that energy flow is sustainable in the true sense of the word. There are some concerns about the amount of energy used in construction vs the amount of energy the turbine can harness over its lifetime, but those issues can probably be solved through engineering.

Hydro-electric systems are also driven by the Sun. It's the Sun which heats the water and causes it to evaporate. It's the Sun which drives the wind that carries the vapour up over the higher land, imbuing it with gravitational potential energy. As the water flows down again towards sea level we can extract some of that energy to turn a turbine and convert it to electricity.

Wave and/or tidal energy. Waves are caused by the wind, which in turn is powered by the Sun, and there's a colossal amount of kinetic energy in the movement of the water. Harnessing that's a great idea. The tides are due to the gravitational pull of the Moon on the water. Taking energy from that system will actually cause the Moon to orbit more slowly and crash into Earth... but that's going to happen eventually anyway and it's unlikely we'll make any significant impact. (No pun intended.)

Geothermal (hot rocks). Not, strictly speaking, a renewable resource but definitely a clean one. Worth looking at where the geology is appropriate.

Nuclear. Ah, had to get to this eventually. Ultimately, nuclear energy is a form of stored energy that was locked into atoms by long-dead stars. It's completely natural but - like molten lava or the Sydney funnelweb spider - not something you want to get too close to. It's interesting to note that some of the geothermal heat which people want to harness was actually released during the radioactive decay of unstable nuclei. There is a lot of nuclear energy available to us here on Earth but like fossil fuels there are undesirable side-effects and it's not a renewable resource.

And that, pretty much, is it. We need to stop using fossil fuels now due to global warming but we will simply run out of oil soon anyway. Nuclear technology will continue to play a role in the global energy mix for a very long time, and it's possible that new developments could greatly reduce the risks associated with radioactive waste and other concerns. The rest of them are all important because none of them can supply so much energy in such a convenient form as fossil fuels have done for the past couple of centuries.

There's a lot of work needed to secure energy supplies and maintain a habitable planet, even just for the rest of this century. I've started doing my bit and you can too.

Thanks so much for reading this far. Questions, comments, corrections all are welcome.

Weekly stats

Average daily electricity and water consumption figures for the past week:

319 litres of water (vs 267 last week and 423 last quarter);
6.7 kWh of electricity for general use (vs 7.5 last week and 8.7 last quarter);
6.2 kWh of electricity for heating water (vs 6.3 last week and 5.4 last quarter).

Monday, 4 June 2007

Understanding Energy - Part 1 of 2

As I talk with people and as I read what comes of the mainstream press and government departments, I frequently get the impression that there's a general lack of understanding about energy. There are plenty of other topics about which you could say exactly the same thing of course, but at this point in human history I believe that energy is something we really need to have a good grip on.

So I hope you'll permit me to go all explanatory for a bit. I promise it's really important and not very hard to understand. But it is too much for one post so I'm breaking it up into two. Today we'll look at what energy is and what it does. I'll follow that up with a post on how that's related to our modern world and the usual content of this site. So...

I'll start out with a really simple definition: Energy is what changes things.

Most of the obvious changes relate to how fast something is moving and in which direction: driving a car or hitting a tennis ball are intuitive examples of the way energy can be applied to change an object's motion. The energy that a moving object has is called kinetic energy.

But energy can take many forms (including the form of matter, as Einstein famously described in his "E equals m c squared" formula). Here are a few more:

Even the smallest objects, right down to atoms and molecules, move. As with large objects, the faster they're moving, the more kinetic energy they possess. But atoms have another kind of moving energy too. They can absorb energy in a form which makes them wriggle and bounce about in completely random ways. This atomic-level "Peter Garrett impersonation energy" is what we simply refer to as heat.

There's a very familiar and useful but extremely complex form of energy called electromagnetic radiation. This includes light, radio waves, x-rays, microwaves and so on.

And there are a number of kinds of fields in which energy can be stored and retrieved. One easy example is a gravitational field: you store energy in a gravitational field by raising an object to a higher position. That energy is released from the field as the object is allowed to fall. Other kinds of fields include electric and magnetic fields. Energy stored in fields is known as potential energy.

There are others but that'll do for now. Now that we've established that energy can take different forms, it mightn't surprise you to hear that energy can be converted from one form to another. Take the falling object as an example: at its highest point, before it starts to fall, it has a lot of gravitational potential energy but no kinetic energy (ie, it's not moving). When it's let go and allowed to start falling, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. As it falls lower and lower more and more energy comes out of the field and becomes embodied in the increasing downward speed of the object.

It's the conversion of energy from one form to another which enables most of the interesting changes in the universe - including life itself. But there are two rules to the energy game which you have to know before you can play...

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Whenever energy is used, some of it gets "lost" and can't be used again.

(In case you're wondering... yes, that does mean that eventually all the energy in the universe will be "lost" and nothing will ever change again. But don't sweat it - that's not going to happen for an incredibly long time.)

Right. So now you've got a grip on the rules, let me give you a quick update on the state of play in the great game of life on Earth.

For almost five billion years, our little rock has been spinning through the cold empty vacuum of space in orbit around an enormous nuclear fusion reactor. As a result of that reactor converting large quantities of matter into electromagnetic energy which travels quite efficiently through space, the Earth has had a steady stream of energy available to convert into different forms and enable all sorts of change.

In the early days most of the conversion was directly into heat, but a combination of heat and some tricky light-powered chemical reactions gradually snowballed to produce a soup of carbon-based compounds. At some point, and through a mechanism not clearly understood, life began.

Life and energy are inseparable. Life, by definition, must grow and sustain and replicate itself. Growth is change and energy is what changes things. And for all practical purposes, all of the energy for all of the things which have ever lived on this planet has come from the Sun.

The essential flow of energy goes like this:
  • Plants convert energy from sunlight into stored chemical energy, with some "lost" as heat in the conversion process.
  • Things which eat plants use some of that stored chemical energy to create their own tissues (muscle, blood etc), with some energy retained in the new chemical bonds and some "lost" as heat.
  • Plant eaters also convert some of the plants' stored energy into energy of motion (walking, chewing etc) which is ultimately all "lost" as heat.
  • Meat eaters rely on the chemical energy they obtain from the tissues of the plant eaters to power their own growth and movement - and of course most of that is "lost" as heat during the lifetime of the animal.
  • Eventually all things die, but the energy in their tissues is fought over by lifeforms ranging from the smallest bacteria to the largest carnivorous scavenger. Some of the energy may get recycled (dead thing -> fungus -> plant eater -> meat eater) but at each step of the way some of the Sun's original input gets "lost" as heat, never to power the changes of life again.
To wrap this up, here's what you need to remember from this post: all the Earth's energy comes from the Sun, it provides life with the ability to grow and to modify the materials of the Earth, and the majority of it eventually heads back out into space as waste heat.

Next time we'll look at why our modern abundance of energy is basically a once-off freak accident and why there is so much concern about what is going to happen to our civilisation as the Earth's energy flow returns to its four-billion-year-old business as usual.

Sunday, 3 June 2007

Green Eye for the IT Guy

I do feel sometimes like I'm in the middle of a lifestyle makeover show. But this one's self-imposed and doesn't have a lot in the way of active input from experienced people who know what they're doing.

Now's not the time to be showing off my compost. There's certainly something very biologically active going on in the back corner of the yard and a large pile of stuff has shrunk down to almost a third its original size. But when I turned it all over the other day I found a seething mass of large, fat maggot-like things right at the bottom... no idea what they actually were but I took encouragement from the fact that there was life there and the lowest layers of the pile had been turned into a dark, moist substance that looked not unlike what I imagine compost should be. That experiment is ongoing.

But I do want to show off an obvious success. I knew when I started trying to grow stuff that I was going to do a very bad job at first. To avoid the disappointment of failure which results from taking on a challenge that's too big for me, I made sure to include something which had a good chance of working: tomatoes.

Yes I bought a plastic pot - about $20 from one of those ubermarket hardware chains - but I figure it's an acceptable use of resources since I don't have an established garden to work in, it's water-efficient and it's going to be usable and productive for quite a long time. I filled it with soil taken from the back yard where a previous owner had a vege patch.

Here's a pic of the pot, the roughly 8 week old plants, and my two older kids (5 and almost 3 years old, respectively).



One of the people at the sustainability fair yesterday commented that tomatoes are easier to grow than weeds. That may be true, but seeing as none of the strawberry seeds I planted even bothered to germinate, I'm really glad of it.

Saturday, 2 June 2007

Notes from Caboolture Sustainable Living Fair

Well that was interesting. CREEC wasn't hard to find, and I was pleased to see it's quite close to the Burpengary train station. I might find myself heading that way for a bike/train outing every now and then to participate in some of their events. It was about 22km from my place by car.

I went along to this fair with a few priorities in mind:
1. Find out more about growing food in the back yard and/or community gardens
2. Ask about distribution schemes for locally-grown produce
3. Try to make contact with people who live nearby and are focused on sustainable living
4. Maybe clarify the Greens' position on alternative nuclear energy technologies (there are some which don't produce waste that lasts for thousands of years and are almost useless for making weapons... but you don't hear about them much)

Amazingly enough, I scored four out of four.

I met some very nice and enthusiastic people from Permaculture Caboolture (not sure whether they're technically a club, society or what) who have heaps of information to share about growing food and who know heaps of other people to link up with to promote food gardening at home or in community gardens or in school programs. I'll be following up on a number of the suggestions I received and will be sure to note them here online.

There's apparently a meeting somewhere in Brisbane this coming week regarding a program which teaches organic gardening and food preparation to primary school children as part of their routine curriculum. Will make an effort to get along and check that out.

Regarding local food distribution, there's an organic farm at Beerwah which sells "subscriptions": each week you give them $60 and they give you a big box of assorted veges. The Permaculture Caboolture people are hoping to start a monthly organic farmers market at CREEC starting on the 14th July. And another bloke is talking about establishing a community garden program at Petrie, which would also link up with the regular markets which are held out that way.

And I did enjoy a chat with a guy on the Australian Greens stand about the theoretical possibility of safe, clean nuclear energy production using technologies which are quite unlike the uranium fuel cycle that everybody associates with the term "nuclear". I was very pleased with the open-minded and sensible reaction - he'd even heard of thorium before I mentioned it.

A few other quick observations to wrap up:
  • A lot of paper brochures being given away - how ironic.
  • Good representation from Caboolture Shire Council, but with an unsurprising emphasis on economic considerations and "waste management" as opposed to true sustainability.
  • I was surprised to see fast food and pre-packaged drinks on sale. (Thumbs up to the organic sausage sizzle though for good taste and the single paper napkin.)
  • Local businessman pushing a carbon sink program: $40 for 17 trees, 100 year expected lifespan. It's probably a good thing.
  • Greens guy reckons that ethanol being produced for fuel in Qld is derived from the waste material left over from sugar production as opposed to the sugarcane juice itself. I need to do some more research: that might tip the overall energy balance in favour of that particular scheme... but you can bet your Porsche that it's not scalable to the point where it replaces even a small fraction of the state's fuel requirements.