A better solution for water

Here is a copy of our domestic water bill for 2 February 2010.

We have 23,000 litres of water tanks in Surrey Hills and are almost completely self-sufficient for water - as you can see by the information on this bill, including:

• 4 litres per person per day for November to Jan 2010 (compared with the government target of 155)
• 0 liters per person per day over the periods may to October 2009.

Yet the Victorian Minister Tim Holding has stated that "water tanks are not an effective solution" and Premier John Brumby as stated that "water tanks would have higher carbon emissions than the desalination plant".  

Neither have responded to my letters informing them that they are wrong on both counts - despite me providing evidence that proves my point.

The Brumby government panicked during 2008-2009 when the drought was severe, and threw 10 years of water strategy and community consultation focused on recycling water and conserving it in the bin.

Instead the Brumby government has:

• Built the north-south pipeline at considerable cost that takes water from the deprived Murray Darling basin.
• Commissioned the world's largest desalination plant which will cost around $5 billion to build, and residents will have to pay the private consortium "returns" even if they don't produce water

There was no community consultation about either project and the huge environmental impacts of both have been basically ignored. "Parliamentary rule" from Spring Street is not democracy - its dodgy business deals that deliver really bad outcomes that we all have to end up paying for decades to come.

If the government had commissioned recycling and storm water capture instead, we could have avoided the expense and environmental impacts of both these projects.

Links

• Melbourne water usage

John Brumby approves a new coal fired power station

Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Labor government has just approved a new coal fired power station to be build by a Chinese company in the Latrobe Valley.

More carbon emissions will obviously result - despite claims that it is somehow "clean".

We should only be building solar thermal power stations with molten salt energy storage, and wind farms.

Update 17 September 2010
Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP, today called for Australia to bring in a carbon tax to put a price on carbon and to plan for a transition off coal [link]

In California, the world's largest solar power station has just been given approval to proceed.  It will cost US$6b  and provide 1000 MW of power. [link]

Links

• Coal station deal raises eyebrows, Adam Morton, The Age, September 13, 2010
• Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan
• Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges
• Calif. solar plant, to be world's largest, wins key approval

Transition off brown coal rather than exporting it

The burning of brown coal is Victoria's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions - we need to establish a transition off using it for power generation and replace it with renewable energy sources.

The export of more brown coal to other countries being considered by the Brumby government will result in further greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we need to be reducing them. This must not be allowed.

Climate change is recognised as the most serious problem facing humanity and life on earth. We need urgent and immediate emission reductions not rhetoric and expanded use of fossil fuels.

There are opportunities to reduce our current use of electricity by up to 40% by introducing efficiency measures - this should be a major priority of the Victorian Government. In addition to reducing carbon emissions it will also save us money and create green jobs and export opportunities.

Links

• Brumby's dirty secret: coal for export

Logged Brown Mountain tree dated at over 500 years

The results from radiocarbon dating of a sample of one of the old growth forest giants logged recently in Brown Mountain in East Gippsland are in. The tree is between 500 and 600 years old.

A photo of the logged tree stump that was radio carbon dated.

This tree, and the forest it used to be part of, pre dates white settlement in Australa by 279 years. Logging these irreplaceable forests is an abomination sanctioned by the Brumby Government.

Logging has been temporarily halted when threatened species of possum and freshwater crayfish were found in Brown Mountain's forests.

The Brumby government should immediately protect all remaining old growth forest available for logging, as they promised the would do in 2006.

Links

• Brown Mountain forest, Greenlivingpedia
• Felled old-growth tree '500 years old' , ABC News
• Premier Brumby please protect Brown Mountain forest
  

Clean green jobs or protection for polluters?

This post was published as a letter to the editor in The Age on 13 March 2009.

Peter Batchelor's recent announcement that the Victorian government will be seeking proposals for a solar power station sounds promising, but this potential project is not fully funded yet.


At the same time, Peter Batchelor announced that Victoria's proposed Feed-in Tariff legislation has a net tariff structure with a 3.2kW array size cap.

The stated intention for the Feed-in Tariff is to provide incentives for the installation of domestic solar systems. However, the proposed tariff structure greatly reduces the financial incentives to households, which conflicts with its primary purpose. Why cap something you are trying to encourage?

The government has not provided a valid explanation for their proposed tariff structure. It is at odds with the proven effective gross metered tariffs that Western Australia and the ACT have just implemented, similar to Germany's which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in their solar sector.

The Brumby government should stop playing politics and get serious about solar and creating jobs for a clean green energy future.

See also

• Feed in Tariff, Greenlivingpedia
• Victorian government to fund new solar power station, media release

Feed in Tariff questions for Premier Brumby

The following email was sent to Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Cabinet on 6/2/09.

Dear Premier Brumby,

I have now written to Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office on five separate occasions concerning the Feed-in tariff legislation your government has stated it will introduce.

As yet, none of the questions (listed below) that I have asked concerning this tariff have been satisfactorily answered by Minister Batchelor or his staff, which I find very disappointing and quite unacceptable.

1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?
2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?
3. What is the purpose of the 2kW array size cap?
4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?
5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?
6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?

7. Why is the Brumby government proceeding with a feed in tariff for Victoria that will be completely ineffective and conflicting with proposed national legislation?

8. What is the Brumby government's target for domestic solar panel installation (in MW) for 2009 and 2010?

I note that Professor Ross Garnaut stated in his final report in 2008 that a gross feed in tariff was the best one to adopt, as has been introduced in the ACT feed-in tariff legislation where they pay on gross metering with a generous 10kW cap on array size.

Several explanations on the government website at http://dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/feedintariff are not consistent or accurate, some of which I address below.

Problems with 2kW cap on array size.

DPI have stated that:

"Data available from the Commonwealth Solar Homes and Communities Plan indicates that the average size of residential PV systems is 1.5 kilowatts and over 90% of currently installed PV systems are at or below 2 kilowatts. For this reason, the 2 kilowatt capacity threshold was deemed appropriate for the premium fee-in tariff scheme."

Your stated purpose for the feed-in tariff is to increase the residential uptake of PV systems. Putting an artificial cap on array size, based on the average systems installed to date, simply limits the financial incentives for households to install systems over 2kW for no good reason. It is therefore in direct conflict with your stated purpose. Your basis for the proposed 2kW cap on array size is simply not valid.

Encouraging energy efficiency

Your government states that encouraging energy efficiency is another objective of the feed-in tariff. This is simply not relevant. The feed-in tariff is a policy measure for encouraging the uptake of solar panels, not driving energy efficiency. I urge you to consider effective measures for encouraging energy efficiency such as:

• Introducing energy efficiency labelling standards for all consumer electrical goods
• Introducing energy efficiency standards as part of building standards
• Consider raising the price of electricity so that consumers will be encouraged so use less

The cost to households is much lower than you claim

I understand that a cabinet committee submission from the Department of Sustainability and Environment stated that the so-called "gross feed-in" solar subsidy scheme would have cost households just $18 a year, or 35 cents a week, increasing electricity bills by just 2 per cent. This is significantly less than your previously claim, based in information not released from Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office, that claimed the cost at $100 a year for households. This claim now appears to be in error.

More solar panels could avoid or reduce recent power outages.

The very hot weather across Victoria last week, combined with many households using energy hungry air conditioners during the day (up to or great than 8kW) resulted in electricity supply falling below demand. Photovoltaic panels, if enough are installed, would generate power for the grid precisely when on hot sunny days when it is needed most and power is most expensive. Additional generation by solar panels may have avoided these supply problems and kept the grid, and Melbourne's train network, operating properly during the heatwave conditions.

Solar panels reduce emissions and therefore address climate change.

All power generated from PVs should be paid a gross tariff as they produce power that would otherwise be sourced from the coal-fired electricity, thereby reducing carbon emissions, This is an essential measure for tackling climate change, which is now an urgent concern following the recent extremely hot weather resulting in some deaths and huge disruption to Victoria's economy.

The Feed in tariff should also provide financial incentive for large scale solar power energy producers to encourage investment in large scale solar plants too.

I strongly urge you to implement a proven effective gross feed in tariff with no cap on array size as this would greatly boost installation of solar panels and green jobs, both of which will benefit Victoria.

Peter Campbell

Previous correspondence

Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: 5/10/2008 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:58:48 +1000
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:38:12 +1000
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:29:08 +1000
Subject: LETTER: Please introduce a feed in tariff Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:26:37 +1100

Premier Brumby please protect Brown Mountain Forest

Below is a copy of a letter I just sent to Premier John Brumby, and some recent photos of Brown Mountain logging - a crime against the enviroment. More information here.

Orbost Spiny Cray found in Brown Mountain Creek

Illegally cleared (bulldozed) rainforest gully

Illegally felled forest giant in buffer zone outside of logging area

=======
Your Ref: DSE057747
Your File: FS/18/0020

Dear Premier Brumby,

I received a communication from Janine Haddow (DSE) dated 30/12/2008 in response to an email I sent to you and Minister Jennings on 29/10/2008 asking to stop the logging of old growth forest at Brown Mountain. Unfortunately, Ms Haddow did not adequately address the concerns I raised with you.

To reiterate, the Labor Party pledged in a policy document during the 2006 State election that:

"In addition to the Goolengook Block, a Labor Government will immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system."

Premier Brumby, you have broken this promise. In late 2008 bulldozers destroyed 20 hectares of Brown Mountain forest classified as old growth. Now they are about to continue to destroy another 40 hectares.

This Brown Mountain forest should have been included in the forest areas specified for protection because it is designated as old growth forest by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and it forms an important part of the link between the Errinundra and Snowy River National Parks, the creation of which was also a policy commitment.

You are allowing and supporting the clearfelling of old growth forest as "business as usual" despite these forest's critical role in storing carbon (over 1000 tonnes per hectare) and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.

Ms Haddow’s assertion that "logging occurs on a very small proportion of Victoria’s public land estate" is simply not relevant. No old growth forest should be now logged, as your policy states.

Ms Haddow’s other assertion that "over time the net result from logging Victoria’s native forest is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations" is not correct. A scientific study by Mackey, Keith, Berry and Lindenmeyer (2008) found that:

“the carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will always be significantly less on average (40 to 60 percent depending on intensity of land use and forest type) than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests.”

These forests also provide habitat for threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spot Tailed Quoll, mainland Australia's largest marsupial carnivore, the Long-footed Potoroo, Victoria's rarest marsupial, and the endangered Orbost Spiny Cray.

Locals had recently constructed East Gippsland's first old growth forest walk in these forests, which the Department of Sustainability and Environment knows about. Recent logging has now destroyed much of this walk. It will soon be obliterated, which will result in the loss of an asset that had potential to generate millions of dollars from tourism, as demonstrated by the Valley of the Giants Tree Top Walk in the Walpole-Nornalup National Park in Western Australia.

In addition, several serious breaches of the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 have occurred during the recent logging at Brown Mountain. The following breaches have been reported with photographic evidence:

1. Mixed rainforest along Brown Mountain Creek has been bulldozed in readiness to start clearfelling the adjoining stand of ancient forest.

2. A logging contractor is being investigated for theft of burls.

3. A huge old tree has been felled outside the coupe boundary – this is illegal logging.

4. Used oil filters from bulldozers have been discarded on the ground which will contaminate soil and eventually water courses.

I also note that logging has continued against occupational health and safety regulations when members of the public are present. Worksafe is apparently investigating this.

VicForests has prohibited access to the nearby Errinundra National Park via the tourist road for the past 3 months of summer holidays - with no alternative route offered. This is unacceptable. The public must have access to our National Parks.

Please stop the logging of Brown Mountain immediately, and add the remaining old growth forest on Brown Mountain to Errinundra National Park.

Please honour your stated policy to protect all remaining areas of old growth forest in Victoria.

Peter Campbell
Home address supplied


CC:

• Gavin Jennings, Environment Minister
• Robert Clark, Member for Box Hill
• Janine Haddow, Executive Director for Natural Resources, DSE

Brown Mountain old growth forest is being logged.

It is with a heavy heart that I bring you the shocking news that the wonderful old growth forest of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland is now being logged. There are more than 50 trees over 300 years old in this area of forest, which is adjacent to Errinundra National Park.


The Labor Party pledged during the 2006 State election that

"In addition to the Goolengook Block, a Labor Government will immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system."

The Brumby Government has broken this promise. The bulldozers moved in last week.

When queried about this decision to destroy the old growth forest, the response from Premier Brumby’s office was

“since VicForests have moved the contractors in, there is nothing we can do”.

It is worth noting that none of the forest areas specified for protection have actually been protected yet either, 2 years after the election. It seems that the Brumby government supports clearfelling old growth forest as "business as usual" despite the forest's critical role in storing carbon (over 1000 tonnes per hectare) and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.

These forests also provide habitat for threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spot Tailed Quoll, mainland Australia's largest marsupial carnivore, and the Long-footed Potoroo, Victoria's rarest marsupial.

Locals have recently constructed East Gippsland's first old growth forest walk in these forests, which the Department of Sustainability and Environment knows about.

Please Take Action

Brown Mountain needs everybody’s help.

Please email and/or brief all your networks, family and friends and have them contact the Premier’s office.

Call: 03 9651 5111
email: john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
Copy:

• gavin.jennings@parliament.vic.gov.au
• john.lenders@parliament.vic.gov.au

Please act immediately…..

In your calls and emails, simply express your opposition at the logging of old growth forests in absolute contravention of the Labor's commitment to protect old growth forests in East Gippsland.

More information and photos

• The GECO website
• East Gippsland forest protection report, Peter Campbell
• Summary of East Gippsland forest protection report, Peter Campbell
• Brown Mountain old growth forest, Greenlivingpedia

Will Labor stop logging Melbourne's water catchments?

I understand the Victorian Labor (ALP) State Conference this weekend considered the following motion:

Preamble

Climate change is already well under way and consequently Victoria’s water supply is very seriously endangered in both rural and urban regions.

Despite this, logging continues unabated in what remains of our mountain ash forests and in the areas supposedly set aside as water catchment.

This is permitted to occur because of contracts with logging companies that have export commitments for wood chips that are sold to millers at ridiculously low prices (in the order of $8.50 per ton) i.e. the State is subsidizing the millers at the expense of our water supply.

Given that Victoria now has plantation timber available to fulfil all our requirements for construction and for paper, it is clear that continuing to destroy the source of our water supply is an unsustainable practice.

Conference therefore resolves that it request the State Government to:

1. Immediately ban logging in all water catchment areas
2. Review forest management practice overall with the intent of transferring all logging activity to plantation timber.

Proposed by Upper Yarra branch October 2008

As I have mentioned in previous postings, it is past time that logging in Melbourne's water catchments must stop, because every drop counts.

I wait with interest and hope that the Brumby Labor government here in Victoria displays some real leadership on protecting our water supplies and our forests.

UPDATE

Still waiting for some "official information" on the outcome.

However, on the grapevine, I have heard that:

• Labor factional heavyweights combined forces minutes before the motion went up and departed en masse, despite the fact Jennings was going to speak on the motion, so they were short on quorum. They did this to avoid voting on the motion - so much for "democracy" inside the ALP.
  
• Joe Helper has apparently instigated some sort of investigation (a witch hunt?) into why the Upper Yarra ALP branch put this motion up. Seems like an attempt to silence any discussion on this very important issue.
• Rob Mitchell is apparently undertaking the "investigation" even though he was so 'proudly green' in the last federal election, embracing of climate change and the necessary directives.

Looks like more "dirty deeds done dirt cheap".

By coincidence I was speaking with the Yarra Ranges Shire Mayor Tim Heenan today. He said that local sawmillers are getting virtually none of the timber from the logged catchments - it is all being sent for woodchips to the Paperlynx mill in Gippsland, and that there is a total of only 92 jobs associated with this catchment logging in the shire. So there is no longer local support for this logging in Warbuton.

In addition, this summer the Department of Sustainability and Environment plans to allow more logging in the picturesque Cement Creek catchment above Warbuton, which also contains the rainforest aerial walkway among ancient Myrtle Beech and old growth Mountain Ash forest.

Shame Brumby, shame. Every drop of water counts, with Melbourne's reservoirs now 70% empty near the start of Summer.

Perhaps DSE should be renamed to the Department of Clearfelling, Logging and Water Loss?

Water tanks use less energy than desalination

John Brumby and Tim Holding would do well to consider mandating rainwater tanks for new houses rather than building an energy guzzling desalination plant.

Our domestic water tanks have supplied over 95 per cent of the water for our Surrey Hills house since we installed them in 2001. Based on our experience, 600,000 households could save up to 160 gigalitres of water per year by using captured rainwater and reducing their daily consumption. The energy our pump uses would multiply to 140 kWh of energy per day for these same households. The proposed desalination plant would consume 15 times as much energy just to operate.

There would also be significant emissions associated with the construction of the plant, the pumping of water to Melbourne and waste decomposition and transport.

Domestic water tanks would be a much cheaper, more effective, more greenhouse friendly and more popular solution to meeting Melbourne's water needs than either the proposed desalination plant or the north south pipeline projects.

Links

• Data on domestic water tank energy consumption
• Victoria's proposed desalination plant - facts and information
• Water tanks - information and tips
• Rainwater tank proposal sparks row in Victorian Government, The Age
  
• North South pipeline proposal - facts and information
  
  

Labor's feed-in tariff can still be fixed

Below is the third letter I have sent to Peter Batchelor; so far he has not bothered to answer my first two. I don't think he will bother to answer this one either. So much for accountable government "for the people".

I have also sent copies to all members of John Brumby's Cabinet, as they participated in the decision to implement a Clayton's feed-in tariff in Victoria.


Dear Minister Batchelor,

I am disappointed to have still received no response from your office to my suggestions and questions regarding the government's proposed feed-in tariff legislation (included below).

It should now be apparent to you and the rest of Cabinet that your proposed legislation has had a very detrimental effect on the uptake of solar panels and therefore comprised Victoria's opportunity to become a leader in the installation and even manufacturing of solar panels. This in turn compromises Victoria's ability to meet both State VRET and Federal MRET requirements.

The 100K household income means test on the solar rebate introduced by Peter Garrett has further exacerbated this situation, to the point where solar installations have plummeted when the very opposite should be occurring.

Your stated concerns about impacts on low income households can be addressed by providing them with an appropriate concession.

Also please note that net metering in fact favours high income households where nobody is home consuming power during the day (when a net output can be generated) and actually discriminates against working families where a parent is at home with children using appliances such as washing machines, lighting and cooking - which prevents them generating net output.

In the interests of transparent and accountable government, could you please answer the following questions?

1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?

2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?

3. What is the purpose of the 2kw array size cap?

4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?

5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?

6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?

Brumby claims water tanks use more power than desalination

I have just send this letter in to Premier John Brumby. It will be interesting to read his answer, although I suspect I won't get one.


Premier Brumby,

You stated on ABC 774 radio on Thurday 26 June 2008 that "the proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant would use less power than equivalent rainwater tanks"

Can you please provide evidence for this claim?

Studies of water tanks have shown that they would use one fifth of the power of the desalination to supply the equivalent amount of water (150 gigalitres).

I have a power meter on our rainwater tank pump on our house so I will provide you with more empirical data on this next week to confirm this data.

Information about the plant and why rainwater tanks would be a better option is available in this article: http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Victorian_desalination_plant

I look forward to your timely response to this very important question.

Brumby Labor carbon fails carbon test

Peter Batchelor's announcement that the new brown coal-fired power station will proceed in the Latrobe Valley (Age 2/7) fails the simple critical test of "will this reduce our carbon emissions".

It will belch millions of tonnes more carbon dioxide into our increasingly hotter and drier world.

We need to be decommissioning coal-fired power stations and making major investments in proven zero emission renewable energy.

Link: Latrobe valley's new $750 million clean coal power station a step closer

The Brumby government has got it wrong on water

The Brumby government has announced their strategy for coping with the now chronic water shortage due to Victoria's greatly reduced rainfall.

Rainfall in the state has reduced 75% over the last ten years, which far exceeds the worst case predictions by the CSIRO when they modeled the effects of climate change.

It is therefore appropriate that the Victorian government take fairly urgent action to address this very serious issue that now impacts all Victorians. The question is, have they got the right strategies in place?

The government's Water Plan, also labeled as “Our Water Our Future” details the following key initiatives:

1. A new desalination plant for Melbourne
2. Modernising Victoria’s Food Bowl irrigation system to capture lost water for farms, the environment and Melbourne
3. Expansion of Victoria’s Water Grid
   
4. Upgrading Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide over 100 GL of recycled water in 2012 and assessing a range of alternative uses of this water
5. Supporting new and existing water conservation programs for homes and industry.

While elements of this plan seem reasonable, the projects arising out of it to date are highly questionable.

The desalination plant

The proposed desalination plant at Wonthaggi is supposed to provide 150 gigalitres of water per year – enough for one third of Melbourne's consumption. However, this plant will require 90 megawatts of power to run. This translates to 1 terawatt hour per year (1,000 gigawatt hours).

The government has stated that they will source renewable energy for this, but there is significant risk that they won't be able to get enough.

Premier John Brumby stated on ABC Radio 774 on 26 June 2008 that the desalination plant would cost less to install and use less energy than installing domestic rainwater tanks with electric pumps. The information he based this claim on appears to be incorrect. Calculations on domestic pumps supplying one million households indicated that they would only consume 365 gigawatt hours per year, less than half the amount required to power the desalination plant.

More energy is also need to pump water from the desalination plant to Melbourne.

Stopping logging in Melbourne's water catchments would yield about another 30 gigalitres per year.

Modernising Victoria's irrigation system

This $750 million project is part of a government water strategy, which would also modernise infrastructure in the region to save 225 billion litres of water now lost through evaporation, seepage and system inefficiencies.

While replacing fixing leaks and water losses in irrigation infrastructure is a good thing, the Victorian government has announced a plan to pump water from the Goulburn River, which is in the water-deprived Murray Darling catchment, over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne.

The two glaring problems with this are:

1. There is not enough water in the Goulburn River to take more out without critically endangering both the Goulburn and Murray Rivers.

2. The water taken out, estimated to be 75 gigalitres, will be pumped over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne, which will result in more carbon emissions

Expansion of Victoria’s Water Grid

The concept behind “expanding the water grid” is to provide interconnections between river systems and storages across the state of Victoria.

The claimed benefits for this include:

• Increase the security of water supplies by diversifying the sources of water available for communities connected by the Grid

• Enable water to be traded more readily, by making it easier to transfer water to where it is most needed and valued

• Increase the value of supply options (current and future) by increasing the flexibility and diversity of uses.
• The expanded Victorian Water Grid will allow more water to be transferred between water systems.

However, around 10,000km of expensive new pipeline is required to create this network.

There are social equity issues with taking scarce water from rural areas to for Melbourne's domestic water supply.

Environmental flows have not been provided to the Yarra River which flows through Melbourne, contrary to scientific recommendations and a previous government commitment. This environmental flow should be provided to ensure the health of the river.

Carbon emissions are generated every time water pumped through a pipeline unless renewable energy is used for this.

Upgrading Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide over 100 GL of recycled water in 2012 and assessing a range of alternative uses of this water

This proposal is a good one. However, Melbourne produces around 320 GL of wastewater per year. Around 400ML per day is pumped out from Gunnamatta Beach outfall alone.

The government should set a higher target for recycling water of at least 200GL, and eliminate ocean outfalls.

Latrobe Valley power stations consume 140 billion litres (GL) of water per year, so recycled water could be used for this purpose rather than drinking water.

Supporting new and existing water conservation programs for homes and industry

This initiative is commendable. However, Melbourne's daily water usage is still quite high at 277 litres per person per day. A reduction to 150 litres per person per day is achievable, which would greatly reduce demand for water, and expensive new infrastructure to provide it.

Summary

The Brumby government has embarked on an expensive plan to address Victoria's water shortage, with a particular focus on ensuring Melbourne's water supply, with some severe impacts on rural areas resulting. In particular, the loss of water from the ailing Goulburn River, and the building of an energy hungry and polluting desalination plant at Wonthaggi will have major impacts to these regions.

The entire Murray Darling River is now at risk. Rather than taking more water from the Goulburn River, increased environmental flows should be provided to both the Goulburn and Murray rivers.

The $4.9b spending on these water projects will be passed onto Victorian taxpayers, with water bills increasing by about 15% already in 2008. It is projected that water prices will double by 2012 to pay for these projects.

Simple proven measures to increase water supply by protecting water catchments from logging are being ignored.

Melbourne's water supply needs would be better and more cheaply met by:

• reducing water consumption through increased efficiency measures

• stopping logging in water catchments

• major investment in domestic water tank systems, which have the added advantage of being installed incrementally

• harvesting, storing and using more of the 450 GL of storm water Melbourne loses per year

• recycling at least 200GL of sewerage per year and stopping ocean outfalls.

These initiatives can be funded from recurrent spending at cheaper rates (10%) than funds for giant projects such as the proposed $3b desalination plant (20%) under a Public Private Partnership.

The other worrying aspect of the government's water strategy is the apparent lack of supporting information on how their decisions were made, and grossly inadequate public consultation during its development.

The water strategy has been delivered as a fait accompli by government; they are not showing any signs of investigating lower risk and cheaper, more distributed alternatives.

The rally against the crappy feed in tariff - photos

Here are some photos of the rally at Parliament today about the crappy feed in tariff legislation the Brumby Government is introducing.

Solar kids

Solar Faker?

Greens MLC Colleen Hartland

Phil Cleary from the ETU

Links

• More photos
• Quarrels led to watered-down solar plan, -The Age
• Why the feed in tariff is useless, Peter Campbell
• Brumby Government’s solar feed-in law a flop Environment Victoria
  

Brumby government delivers a useless feed in tariff

What on earth is going on in the Victorian Cabinet?

After visiting the Bali convention on climate change and using their generous travel allowances to see how a good feed in tariff can promote emission reductions and jobs from solar power in countries like Germany, our Victorian Government has delivered a feed in tariff that is crippled and worthless.

It really is cynical greenwash, and follows the trend of them taking no real action to address climate change.

Who in the big end of town has guided them to such a poor outcome? They can't really be that stupid can they? Once again, politics delivers a very poor and non-transparent policy and legislation for the people, who expect so much more.

Read the letter below I sent to Cabinet for more details. And watch this video.





=================

Dear Mr Batchelor,

Thanks for your late advice about the introduction of the new Feed in Tariff in Victoria further to my correspondence with your office on this matter on 19/3/08.

Unfortunately, I believe that the Government has made serious mistakes in the structure of this tariff, which almost completely negate the positive effects a well structured tariff would have.

My concerns are:

1. The Feed in Tariff is only paid on net metering.

The total electricity generated by panels should be subject to the tariff, as all the clean electricity generated has zero emissions which directly substitutes for coal-fired power and therefore reduces emissions accordingly.

In Germany and other locations where they pay the tariff on gross metering, there has been a dramatic rise in installation of solar power. Germany now has 400 times the solar output of Australia despite having about half our sunshine.

You have missed the opportunity to provide similar encouragement to a new economy and local industry (and jobs) based on increased installation of panels on available roof space.

2. The Feed in Tariff has a maximum ceiling of 2kW

This is nonsense. The more solar zero emissions power we generate as a nation the better. This is a critical measure for reducing our emissions to combat climate change. The 2kW array size limit for getting the Feed in Tariff is simply crippling the financial motivation for people to install solar panels, and crippling their payback if they choose to install a bigger array.

We currently have a 1.5kW array that has been running for 6 years and intend to expand it to 3kW. Your Feed In Tariff will provide us with no benefits.

Most five star standard households currently consume about 20 to 25kwH of electricity per day. A 1kW array produces about 5kwH per day, while a 2kW array produces about 10 kwH per day. Such systems will therefore export negligible net energy to the grid, particularly if a 2kW air conditioner is run on hot sunny days.

There is no rational reason to apply such a tariff ceiling; it should be removed.

3. No certainty for investment is provided

The complexities and restrictions of your feed in tariff resulting from net metering combined with the 2kW ceiling provide no certainty or guarantee for investment in a solar array, unlike gross metering with no ceiling which does. This is evident in countries like Germany where there has been significant investment in solar power - now the equivalent of two coal fired power stations, but with zero emissions.

The resultant lack of certainty for investment will greatly impede the uptake of solar power in Victoria.

4. Your Feed in Tariff is discriminatory.

The very few who may be lucky enough to benefit from your tariff will be those who can afford a 6 star house, relatively expensive efficient appliances and a 2kW array. By contrast, lower income less efficient households with a 1kW array and less efficient appliances will get no benefit. This is discriminatory.

In summary

Your assertion that the FIT "could pay off the cost of installation in less than 10 years" is incorrect. The combination of the 2kW ceiling and paying on net metering means very few, if any, will get any financial benefits from the tariff so it will be impossible for it to pay off the residual cost of solar panel installation after the rebate.

This scheme effectively does not deliver on Labor's 2006 election promise to introduce a workable feed in tariff due to its crippled nature.

Your tariff will not provide any incentive for leadership in Victoria in uptake of solar power or renewable energy initiatives.

Your tariff is not strategic and does not improve affordability of sustainable solar power. It will not empower Victorian households to take action on climate change.

I attended the rally at parliament today with 400 others to protest about the problems with your feed in tariff. I spoke to some of the many ETU members present who had expectations that the Brumby government would provide a feed in tariff that would stimulate local employment in clean energy energy industries. They feel you have let them down. I agree with them on this.

Your tariff has also not met the expectations of many local community groups who are very keen to see real government action on climate change. As such, it is a great disappointment.

I strongly urge you to adjust the tariff to remove the 2kW ceiling and use gross metering, so that Victoria can mirror the proven success of such tariffs where they have been implemented elsewhere and I understand will be implemented in the ACT.

As a reference, http://www.greenlivingpedia.org has many examples and much information about successful and implemented renewable energy policies, initiatives, and sustainable housing.

I would like to meet with you to discuss my concerns about this further.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell

CC: Cabinet members and other MPs

Of mythical water grids, pipelines and logging in catchments

After a period of denial and inaction about our looming water crisis, the Brumby Labor government is now hell bent on pushing their so called "water grid" as a solution for our ongoing reduced rainfall. I am not sure where they got this concept from. It seems to have entered "government speak" around the world from the Thames in the UK to Queensland.

Unfortunately the concept as described in Victoria has a number of serious flaws and seems to be mainly a public relations exercise.

My understanding of the concept in Victoria is that large scale engineering works - such as the North South pipeline, and perhaps the planned $3b desalination plant at Wonthaggi - will create a system where water can be transferred long distances to places where it will be used.

The major problems with this approach are:

• Any pipelines that are not gravity fed will require a lot of energy (mostly derived from coal-fired power) to pump the water. This will result in major greenhouse gas emissions.
• The proposed North South pipeline is taking water from the Murray Darling catchment - where it is desperately needed - to Melbourne, where it is not. This has major impacts for people living both along the Goulburn, and all the way down the Murray River to Adelaide, whose residents rely on the river for most of their drinking water
• The costs of pipelines is high. The 70km North South pipeline is estimated to cost $750m.
• The environmental impacts of pipelines is high. The North South pipeline route has the potential to affect 75 threatened animal and plant species.
• The planned desalination plant will produce a lot greenhouse gas emissions too, and the water from it will have to be pumped all the way to Melbourne.
• Logging in Melbourne's water catchments continues - which is resulting in less water and a reduction in its quality.
  

The Brumby Government's rationale for all this is not clear. We are quite obviously running low on water, but we are not yet on Stage 4 restrictions, and Melbourne's daily household water usage is still quite high.

People still have their swimming pools full too - topped up with water trucked in, resulting in yet more greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a cruel irony in climate change causing reduced rainfall, then most of the governments measures to address water shortages resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions, which will further exacerbate climate change.

Brumby has also stated that:

"the only way you can find new water is by reducing savings, evaporation and seepage and those things".

Fixing leaky irrigation channels and pipes does save water loss and is worth doing, but it doesn't "find new water" (or create it).

Here is my proposal for addressing the water shortage:

• Mandate water tanks for every new household - 5000 litres storage per bedroom - to catch and use rainwater.
  
• Subsidise a retrofit scheme for water tanks to existing households, or provide a rebate on water bills for those who have tanks installed.
• Aim to recycle 80% of the water we use, rather than just flushing it down sewers and out to the ocean. Cease putting water out at the Gunnamatta and other ocean outfalls.
  
• Aim to reduce domestic usage to 120 litres per person per day
• Stop logging in Melbourne's water catchments immediately - this should save 30 gigalitres of water per year.
• Use recycled water for the cooling towers of Latrobe Valley power stations, rather than drinking water.
• Design gardens that capture water. A lot of new housing developments have more paved area than garden, which results in more water runoff and less entering the soil and water table.
• Shift agricultural usage to the most efficient methods. Eliminate sprinkler application and flood irrigation where they are still in use, in favour of drip irrigation.
  

Links

• Pipeline route to threaten protected species ABC Goulburn Murray
• Melbourne water usage - Greenlivingpedia
• State water grid to secure supply: Brumby - ABC News
  
  

Brumby goes for "green coal" and subverts real action on climate change

Just when I thought government rhetoric and funding (using taxpayer's money) on pretending that the coal industry can somehow be made "green", "clean" and even "carbon neutral" had reached ridiculous levels, Peter Batchelor comes out with this:

"But Mr Batchelor said coal must be used in a more environmentally friendly way and clean coal technologies, such as burying carbon emissions underground and drying coal, offered the potential for zero emissions from coal-fired power stations."

"The future of coal relies on it becoming greener," he said.

Mr Batchelor said that capturing carbon, by returning and storing it underground in a safe and environmentally friendly way, "mimicked nature".

The question here is whether he actually believes this nonsense.

Zero emissions coal fired power stations? Green coal? That's funny, I thought it was brown or black.

Mimicking nature? Oh, we dig it up (using fossil fuel energy), process it, burn, capture CO2 from the chimneys (using more than 30% more energy and coal in doing so), liquefy it (using more energy), pump it a considerable distance (using more energy), squirt it under the ground - if we can find cavities vast enough to accommodate it - then cross our fingers and hope it stays there.

So how exactly does this mimic nature?

Next week's state budget will contain $110 million for an industrial-scale project investigating the capture and storage of carbon produced by power plants.

The Government will also fund a new body, Clean Coal Victoria, based in the Latrobe Valley, and commit $5 million to search for carbon storage sites, such as used oil and gas reservoirs in Bass Strait. So they don't even know yet whether they will be able to store it.

No public money should be spent on this risky venture, which even if it can be made to work, won't be viable until 2020 or later. We need emission reductions now.

So why are they doing this?

Well, there are marginal Labor state seats in the Latrobe Valley and an upcoming by-election in Gippsland which Labor wants to win. Looks like politics wins and real action on climate change looses. Or maybe they do believe their own nonsense.

Link: State puts greenhouse money on clean coal The Age

More clearways mean yet more cars

So Premier John Brumby has just decided that the solution to Melbourne's traffic congestion is to further extend clearway times across inner Melbourne.

If there is a war between transport options in Melbourne, then the car is winning hands down. In addition to spending spending a vast proportion of our transport dollars on roads and freeways, we are now reducing amenity in urban streets in favour of yet more traffic.

Melbourne has been rated several times as having "high liveability". I think that more roads filled with more cars for longer periods will detract from this.

Melbourne is faced with transport problems, not traffic problems. Unfortunately the Brumby Government and its predecessors just don't get it. Without viable options such as public transport and safe cycling, people are forced to use their cars for commuting and shopping.

More people and more cars means more congestion. While this seems simple, unfortunately the roads lobby seems to have completely captured the government agenda.

How about a referendum on transport options, including new rail lines and upgrading existing ones, instead of just spending billions on freeways and roads?

No significant new urban railways have been built in Melbourne since the Glen Waverley line in 1930. Not one.

Emissions from cars and trucks are a major contributor to climate change - it is high time that steps were taken to reduce our reliance on them for routine transport.

Links

• Inner-city anger at clearway purge The Age

GM for Victoria is a travesty of democracy

The Brumby government removed the GM moratorium that was in place in Victoria for the last five years. I attended a vocal protest on the steps of the Victorian parliament on Thursday 28 February 2002 that raised community concerns about:

• the contamination of traditional farmers crops with genetically modified plants such as GM canola
  
• inadequate food labelling legislations which means the consumers cannot know if products they eat contain GM products - which means consumers do not have a choice
• the lack of government research into the safety of GM foods - in spite of evidence that GM foods have caused serious health problems in rats
• herbicide resistant genes from GM canola spreading to wild brassica weeds - making them resistant to existing herbice control measures
• the difficulty for transport and processing plants to segregate GM canola from natural canola - leading to possible contamination of all canola and other food products
• the government not listening to and respecting a clear majority of Victorians including farmers, food processors and shoppers who want our farms and foods to stay GM-free
• Victoria losing its clean green status for food production, which will compromise export markets.

GM giant corporations such as Bayer and Monsanto will benefit from this Brumby government policy while ordinary Victorians do not support it.

I call on John Brumby to release information on how many submissions and letters the government received supporting GM canola compared to those who opposed it. The Brumby governemnt should be governing for Victorians, not global companies and agribusiness interests.

The rally speakers included:

• Stefano De Pieri, Chef and restaurateur
  
• Scott Kinnear - Biological Farmers of Australia
• Kelly Donati - Slow Food Victoria
• Tracy Bartram - comedienne and radio host
• Jessica Harison - South Gippsland against GE
• Frances Murrell - MadGE

Politicians present were Tammy Lobato (Labor MP), Greg Barber and Sue Pennicuik from the Greens and Peter Kavanagh from the DLP. Greg Barber addressed the crowd.

Scott Kinnear, Tammy Lobato and Greg Barber

Tammy Lobato MP at the protest

It was encouraging to hear such a broad range of speakers oppose the introduction of GM canola and the lifting of the GM moratorium in Victoria, and incredibly dissappointing that the Brumby government has chosen to do this.