Looks like it’s time to abdicate. – Source William Wallace Denslow
“King coal still reigns” was the headline emblazoned across a full page article in The Weekend Australian on the 28-29 April 2012, by Environment Editor Graham Lloyd. The article’s subtitle was, “The world is in the grip of a fossil fuel boom that shows no sign of fading”.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The latest data on global investment in new power production shows the dramatic decline in fossil fuel investment, and an astonishing increase in renewables investment.
In 2004, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the International Energy Agency, investment in renewables was $52 billion, with $250 billion invested in fossil fuels. By 2008 the peak in fossil fuel investment had arrived: it dropped to $140 billion, while renewables overtook it with $155 billion in investment.
By 2010 the amounts were $90 billion in fossil fuels and $211 billion in renewables, and by 2011 only 14% or $40 billion of investment was in fossil fuels while 86% or $260 billion was in renewables.
King coal has in fact been dethroned. It will take a while for the global power system to phase out old power stations and be dominated by renewables, but the transition is proceeding much faster than imagined by most institutions, as well as media like The Australian. The International Energy Agency predicted in 2008 that the world would build 64 GW of coal generation in 2010, but when the dust settled on projects built in 2010, only 14 GW of coal was actually built.
Graham Lloyd’s article says that, despite the good intentions, renewable energy projects are struggling to get finance, yet he gives no data to support this.
Bloomberg reported that the 2011 investment in renewables was made up of 59% solar (the price of solar photovoltaic cells fell 50% over this period, leading to a 36% growth in their purchase), 33% wind and 8% smart energy systems, such as smart grids that enable renewables to be more easily accommodated.
But surely this is not happening in Australia, where king coal must still be in control of the market? Bloomberg found the data is clear here as well: in 2011 coal attracted just 17% of value of completed electricity generation projects, gas attracted 36%, and renewables 47%* (of this 41% was wind and solar was 6%).
The emerging economies of China and India have become the dominant source of this global renewables investment. In 2004, Bloomberg New Energy Finance showed that the developing world contributed just one-fifth of renewables investment, but by 2010 the developing world contributed more than half the growing total of renewables.
Australia is not leading the charge on the adoption of clean energy, but it is certainly part of a global movement that will be seen in history as one of the great shifts in economic change. Perhaps King Coal is highly aware of this dramatic fall in its dominance in the power market place.
The role of Murdoch’s media empire in talking up Old King Coal seems to be one of the “fiddlers three”, trying desperately to help keep the king merry as his kingdom collapses.
This article was authored by Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University and co-authored by Ray Wills, CEO of the Sustainable Energy Association.
*ED: This initially read 41% and has since been corrected.
This article was originally published at The Conversation.Read the original article.
How would you cope if for 150 Days you were 60 Metres up a tree, 20 kilometres from “civilisation” and a million miles from your friends and family?
Previously I blogged about Miranda Gibson(B.A. B.Ed) a friend and conservationist who on December 14th, 2011 climbed a rope to the top of an old-growth Eucalyptus Delegatensis tree in the heart of Tasmania’s southern forests, and vowed to stay until the forest is protected.
Miranda may well be separated by distance from those she loves and from those that love her but she has all the mod cons. Internet and mobile phone access. Open plan living. Fresh food, water, clean air and a bucket. A view you couldn’t pay for and the best possible neighbours (except for the loggers).
On March 23rd, 2012 Miranda passed 100 days in the tree sit of the Observer Tree and now Saturday May 12th, 2012 Miranda has reached the 150 day mark.
I still find it incredible that main stream media in Sydney did not run with the story of Miranda reaching the 100 day mark. Perhaps it was because of the cause behind it, perhaps because it was interstate. Regardless of either of those possibilities they should have run something purely on the basis that someone had sat in a tree for 100 days!
Perhaps this time the media in Sydney and, for that matter, other capital cities will give it due attention and allow the wider public of Australia the opportunity to see what it is that Miranda is doing and understand the cause that so many believe in.
As a favourable outcome for the cause is not quite here yet, the next best thing to celebrate is Miranda’s tenacity, her ability to withstand the elements and the confines of her platform whilst fighting for something she truly believes in.
As a tribute to Miranda’s 150 day mark The Kramer Krew in conjunction with Doctasaurus have put together a little presentation piece in order to celebrate, inspire and inform. I have posted it here for all to enjoy. Just click on the below image to see it. Please share it on your social media, link to it and add a comment below.
One of Miranda’s neighbours is a feral. A predator that simply does not belong in the forests of Tasmania, or anywhere for that matter. This predator goes by the name Ta Ann Tasmania, a Malaysian based multinational logging, timber products and forest destruction company.
According to the website http://taann.net – “In January 2006, Ta Ann was welcomed to Australia’s island state of Tasmania with a golden political handshake and they have since established forestry operations to sell Tasmanian wood products to customers in Japan, China and Europe.”
“Ta Ann Tasmania has rejected timber from plantations, staked its future on continued access to timber from native forests and has actively lobbied to stall an industry-wide transition to plantation harvesting. Ta Ann has received timber from the destruction of Tasmania’s world class forests, including timber from old growth forests, forests with recognised World Heritage values, threatened species habitat and other forests that are of high conservation value.”
“Ta Ann Tasmania is now the major driver of logging operations that continue to destroy large areas of old growth and high conservation value forests in Tasmania.”
The website http://taann.net was set up to highlight the plight of Tasmania’s forests at the hand of Ta Ann and the misinformation (Lies?) it provides its customers in order to sell its products.
If you would like to dob in Ta Ann for selling Tasmania’s magnificent forests as ‘eco’ wood you can Take Action Now through the http://taann.net website
I have no problem with the idea of recycling sewage water to enable us to drink it. There is technology available that brings us fairly close to a product that is safe to drink. Science will find a solution to the remaining problems. Eventually.
In the meantime the following information shows there is plenty of concern to muddy the waters of the concept of recycling previously muddied water to enable us to drink it.
There is concern not just with the science but also with the governance of the procedures required to maintain a safe drinking standard, especially when that standard is not clearly defined.
There is an Australian Drinking Water Guideline (ADWG) that is produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The most recent edition being ADWG6 [1] produced in 2011. However it is lacking clear guidelines in several areas, some of which are:
- Escherichia coli (E. coli) – “No guideline value has been set for pathogenic Escherichia coli and its inclusion in routine monitoring programs is not recommended.”
- Bacteroides – “No guideline value has been established for Bacteroides in drinking water”
- Clostridium perfringens – “No guideline value has been set for Clostridium perfringens in drinking water.”
- Total coliforms – Total coliform bacteria (excluding E. coli) – “No guideline value has been set for total coliforms in drinking water”
- Helicobacter pylori – “No guideline value has been set for Helicobacter pylori in drinking water and its inclusion in routine monitoring programs is not recommended.”
- Oestrogenic hormones [2] – The ADWG6 does not contain a guideline for this.
These are just a few examples, references to chemicals and other compounds not included, of what could be found in recycled sewage water and the attached guideline value. If no guideline is given by the NHMRC in a document as important as the Australian Drinking Water Guideline, then that perhaps leaves it up to the local management of the various water suppliers to determine what may or may not be safe and this is just one area where I believe we have a problem.
2008 saw the completion of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme in SE Queensland. It was designed to provide water for industrial, agricultural use and also to supplement the drinking water supplies in the nearby Wivenhoe Dam. Producing in excess of 200 million litres of purified water per day it is currently only used for the Swanbank, Tarong and Tarong North power stations. In November 2008 the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, declared that unless dam levels dropped below 40% capacity the recycled water would not enter the dam.[3]
Adelaide scientist Professor Don Bursill, who developed Australia’s drinking water guidelines, has stated that he would not drink recycled sewage and would not back its use.[4] Professor Bursill who was recognised in Australia Day honours for his contribution to water quality research says the technology that would make recycled sewage suitable for drinking already exists, but he is not confident we have the back-up systems to ensure it stays safe.
“You can turn anything wet into drinking water if you have enough money,” he said. “To really ensure it is safe would cost a tremendous amount. This is one bloke who isn’t going to drink it.”
Professor Bursill, who in retirement is the chairman of the Torrens Taskforce, says while it is possible to produce safe drinking water from waste water, present systems are not adequate to cover the risk of bacterial contamination.
Conversely: Professor Steven Oppenheimer, Director of the Centre of Cancer and Development Biology, California State Northbridge University in an article titled “Augmenting Drinking Water with Reclaimed Water”[5] has stated “The United States of America, and for that matter, the world’s scientific community does not and will not know all of the toxic agents and carcinogens that may be able to make it through the indirect reclaimed water process. …Imagine the possibility of thousands of unknown agents getting into our water supply as a result of hospital and industrial waste releases. And the release by such organizations will not be predictable. We do not even have tests available to determine many of the unknowns that may show up in water from the indirect water reuse program.”[5]
So when it comes to a tap near you, will you trust the authorities to have it right?
