« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »

July 2006

Zelfo - Plastic from Plants

Zelfo Australia is a new company I am on its board. It is making plastic from plants - and I don't mean plants+resin, I mean 100% plants. Here's their press release, or check out the website for many more pictures.

A new sustainable industry is being built in the Northern Rivers. As oil prices skyrocket, alternatives have been sought and solutions dreamt about for some time. A new company, Zelfo Australia has the answer.

And it is a new material made from 100% plants, including industrial hemp and sugar cane that uses no glues or resins and is 100% biodegradable. Made from plants a new super-strong aesthetic material will be produced to suit various markets. Products
that have been made from Zelfo include a Georgio Armani bowl, an award winning chair and stool as well as musical instruments, jewellery and other products that are traditional made from wood, fibre glass, glass and some plastics.

This new industry is looking to work with established designers, manufacturers and builders to produce alternatives to their existing products. “We do not foresee our products making wood or plastics redundant just yet,” states Managing Director
Paul Benhaim “we see Zelfo products being attractive to designers and business’ wanting strong, quality eco-friendly replicable ranges with that ‘handmade’ feel.”
The commercial factory will be powered by green energy, recycle as much of its water as possible, and emit no toxic wastes. “Integrity and ethical authenticity is a key foundation to our business,” states Paul Benhaim, “Quality without Qualms and Strength with Sustainability are our mottos.”

Raw materials that may be used include sugar cane, hemp, jute, flax, waste paper and textile scraps.

What is your vision for a Zelfo future?

Posted by at 4:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Labor once again moving against the environment - time for an opposition!

Isn't it about time we had an opposition party in Australia?

Labor is once again moving to join the Liberals in opposition to our environment, by moving under Beazley's insistence to support new uranium mines.

The arguments against Nuclear Power - and for Renewables as the solution to climate change and peak oil - are strong, and well documented on this blog.

In marginal, progressive seats, local members - such as our own Justine Elliot often express views supportive of what their electorate are demanding. But with the party discipline that Labor imposes it doesn't really make much difference what our local federal or state member's personal views are since they won't cross the floor to back them.

So its a good time to let your local member know that whatever they think, you will work against their re-election if Labor drops its opposition to Uranium mines.

Take the chance, on those rare occasions when you see them out and about in the constituency, to let them know how you feel.

Posted by at 10:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Swipe-card plan to ration consumers' carbon use

There is an interesting article about accounting for carbon in last week's Guardian. I think the scheme has significant weaknesses but is worth reading.

David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday July 19, 2006
The Guardian

A radical plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions by rationing the carbon use of individuals is being drawn up by government officials. The scheme could force consumers to carry a swipe card that records their personal carbon allocation, with points knocked off each time they buy petrol or tickets for a flight.

Under the scheme, all UK citizens from the Queen down would be allocated an identical annual carbon allowance, stored as points on an electronic card similar to Air Miles or supermarket loyalty cards. Points would be deducted at point of sale for every purchase of non-renewable energy. People who did not use their full allocation, such as families who do not own a car, would be able to sell their surplus carbon points into a central bank.

Article continues
High energy users could then buy them - motorists who had used their allocation would still be able to buy petrol, with the carbon points drawn from the bank and the cost added to their fuel bills. To reduce total UK emissions, the overall number of points would shrink each year.

David Miliband, the environment secretary, is keen to set up a pilot scheme to test the idea, and has asked officials from four government departments to report on how it could be done.

The move marks the first serious step towards state-enforced limits on the carbon use of individuals, which scientists say may be necessary in the fight against climate change. It extends the principle of carbon trading - already in place between heavy polluters such as power companies and steel makers - to consumers, with heavy carbon users forced to buy unused allowances from people with greener lifestyles.

The principle was included in the government's review of energy policies, which said a new cross-departmental group "will examine what new policy options, such as tradable personal carbon allowances, could be deployed to stimulate local action". Mr Miliband will announce more details in a speech tonight to the Audit Commission. He will say: "It is easy to dismiss the idea as too complex administratively or too much of a burden for citizens. But in the long term there may be potential to make a system work effectively and in a way that is arguably more equitable, more empowering and more effective than the traditional tools of information, tax and regulation."

Colin Challen, Labour chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change, which has called for carbon rationing, said: "It will inevitably have to be introduced so that consumers, along with other sectors, take responsibility for what they do." But setting up a local pilot scheme could have problems - not least how to stop people driving elsewhere to fill up. Mr Challen said: "An island like the Isle of Wight would be an obvious place for a pilot scheme, though I'm not sure how happy they would be with that."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1823853,00.html

The weaknesses as I see it are that it only applies to fuel, and not to other carbon-generating energies (like coal fired electricity) and imposes an extra level of bureaucracy that could much more easily be dealt with through a carbon tax, matched with a financial allowance - that would work out financially identical to trading unused credits.

Posted by at 9:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Greenpeace UK ad

Just caught this TV ad from Greenpeace UK ...

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gasguzzler/gasguzzler320.mov

Posted by at 11:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Why Nuclear Power cannot be a Major Energy Source - (Fleming)

David Fleming has written a clear 12 page article on why Nuclear power can't meet our energy needs. Its focussed on the lack of any feasible fuel to do so over any reasonable volume / time period. He also gives some useful material on how the nuclear fuel cycle works, and the various wastes produced at different parts of the cycle.

You can read the whole article, a summary follows, each statement is backed up and referenced in the article.

1. Nuclear energy could sustain its present minor contribution of some 21/2percent of global final energy demand for about 75 years, but only by postponing indefinitely the expenditure of energy that would be needed to deal with its waste.
2. Each stage in the nuclear life-cycle, other than fission itself, produces carbon dioxide. The depletion problem facing nuclear power is as pressing as the depletion problem facing oil and gas.
3. The depletion of uranium becomes apparent when nuclear power is considered as a major source of energy. For instance, if required to provide all the electricity used worldwide – while clearing up the new waste it produced – it could (notionally) do so for about six years before it ran out of usable rich uranium ore. and thorium reactors, do not offer solutions in the short/medium term.
4. The overall climate impact of the nuclear industry, including its use of halogenated compounds with a global warming potential many times that of carbon dioxide, needs to be researched urgently.
5. The option that a nation such as the United Kingdom has of building and fuelling a nuclear energy system on a substantial and useful scale is removed if many other nations attempt to do the same thing.
6. The response must be to develop a programme of “Lean Energy”. Lean Energy consists of: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change to build local energy systems; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework, such as tradable energy quotas (TEQs), leading to deep reductions in energy demand.
7. That response should be developed at all speed, free of the false promise and distraction of nuclear energy.

Posted by at 12:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Nanosolar gets 100m funding

I've been suggesting for a while that we will see massive leaps in solar efficiency (as measured in Watts/$, not Watts/square-meter).

Nanosolar's announcement of US$100m to build a fabrication plant, and states "It figures that making its panels will cost as little as 10% of what it costs to turn out current panels, eventually putting them within financial reach for lots more consumers."

Solar is already cheaper than Nuclear, even without taking into account all the externalities (i.e. what you or me pay rather than the utility running the plant!) and breakthroughs like this make it even more likely that we can transition to greener future and beat Global warming.

Read the full article from Business Week.

Posted by at 11:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)