Category: Uncategorized

11 April 2013, 3.40pm AEST
Slow to arrive, but will high speed rail be worth the wait?

East coast Australian cities could one day be linked by high speed rail, but with a price tag of $114 billion and a 40 year timeframe, according to a study released by the Transport Minister Anthony Albanese. Under the plan announced today, the 1,748 kilometre network – including 144 kilometres of tunnels…

Author

James Whitmore

Editor, The Conversation
.

Interviewed

Matthew Burke

Research Fellow at Griffith University
.

Rico Merkert

Senior Lecturer in Aviation Management
.

Peter Newman

Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University
.

The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle. QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS and VU.

7n26my5h-1365657251High speed rail travel could begin by 2035: but the plan comes with a price tag of $114 billion. shutterstock .

East coast Australian cities could one day be linked by high speed rail, but with a price tag of $114 billion and a 40 year timeframe, according to a study released by the Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.

Under the plan announced today, the 1,748 kilometre network – including 144 kilometres of tunnels – will be completed in stages, linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.

The Sydney to Canberra section would be completed in 2035. The last stage, linking the Gold Coast and Newcastle, will be finished in 2058.

The analysis is the second phase of a strategic plan announced in 2010.

The government says despite the large price tag, high speed rail is viable, estimating the network will attract 40% of intercity air passengers by 2065, with 83.6 million passengers expected per year.

We put it to the experts: it’s a long time to wait, and it will cost a lot. Is high speed rail worth it?

——————————————————————————–

Matthew Burke, Senior Research Fellow, Griffith University

The report estimates between 40-60% aviation passengers will transfer to rail. I’m not entirely sure that’s achievable.

If you’re in Coffs Harbour trying to get to Sydney, high speed rail makes sense. A travel time between Sydney and Canberra of an hour down from four makes that a very competitive service.

In a world where oil reserves are constrained, aviation gas may become much more expensive and there may be differences between relative costs. Under those scenarios high speed rail might stack up.

It would make sense to agree and preserve a corridor and plan for a future system but to commence construction only when it’s financially viable.

Should we be doing high speed rail at this point in time with Australian cities the size they are? On a world scale they’re pretty small, the distances between them a very large, and the cost to link them up is enormous.

At the very lowest the cost of high speed rail between Newcastle and Brisbane could be $20 billion, and as high as $40 billion. For $20 billion you could give Brisbane its cross river rail project. You could give the Sunshine Coast its first ever fixed public transport network. You can quadruple the size of the light rail on the Gold coast, and you could still have $10-30 billion left over.

A significant portion of the use that’s projected is for daily commuters who would come from ‘lifestyle’ cities on the outskirts of Sydney and Melbourne travelling to the major centres. These would become the most subsidized commuters in the history of Australian urban settlement. And I’m not sure you could call that travel sustainable even if it’s by rail.

——————————————————————————–

Rico Merkert, Senior Lecturer in Aviation Management, University of Sydney Business School

This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen huge programs in Western Europe: in Spain, France, Germany, even the UK now has a high speed train program connecting London with the North of England. Japan, China and Taiwan do too. At some point we will see high speed trains in Australia. It’s just a question of how soon and at what cost.

It does require informed debate given the large cost and huge up-front investment.

The money could always be spent elsewhere. It would, however, at least in my view, be money well spent, with benefits of $2.30 per $1 spent. Many people will argue that these estimates are optimistic. Construction costs are likely to go up, but still it will still be sensible to look into this more seriously.

There will be quite a lot of demand, particularly on the east coast with Brisbane, Sydney, and Canberra. Sydney to Melbourne is currently the fifth busiest airline route in the world. Brisbane to Sydney is not far behind. There’s quite a lot of potential here as a high speed train could get you from Sydney CBD to Melbourne CBD in under three hours. That’s quite an interesting proposition for a lot of business travellers.

It will be an alternative to airlines. It won’t replace air traffic, because it’s still a lot faster to travel via air. But some travellers based right in the city centre next to the train station might find the offer attractive. In terms of service levels they’re similar to a flight. If the government is not prepared to subsidise these train operations then the prices for these train trips will be slightly higher than those on a [air] carrier (most certainly if it is a low cost carrier, such as Jetstar).

——————————————————————————–

Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University

The high speed rail system in Japan was started after the first oil crisis. We’re now up to the fourth or fifth. The European system has developed along those lines as well. You cannot continue to see a future where more and more oil is used. Some countries have made a serious effort to get off it.

I welcome any studies about getting people out of cars and planes and making a more sustainable transport system. If it’s electric it’s potentially much easier to link into the renewable energy system. We’ve got to get off oil especially diesel.

We’ve got to be serious about this, and I wonder how serious it is to propose a project that will cost $114 billion.

I’ve been looking at rail construction costs the past few years and getting more and more angry at how they have ballooned, which is due to unnecessary risk management.

This proposal seems to be beyond any realistic cost to build. Yet we built the southern railway in Perth for $17 million per kilometer. It had tunnels and bridges, overpasses and is essentially high speed rail at 130 kilometre per hour. I understand the high quality track requirements but these numbers seem too high to me.

More reactions to come

‘Einstein parents’ say no to kids’ vaccination

Sue Dunlevy and Daniela Ongaro
The Daily Telegraph
April 11, 2013 12:00AM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email
Share

0

Genevieve Milton

Mum Genevieve Milton is anti-vaccination and husband Darrell Milton is pro. They have two sons Cadel, 4, and Keanu, 21 months. Neither boy is vaccinated / Pic: Nic Gibson Source: The Daily Telegraph

ALMOST 80,000 Australian children are not immunised against deadly diseases, and the highest number live in Sydney’s west.

Experts say the “baby Einstein” demographic – parents who take an intensive interest in their children’s education and health, eat organic food and use alternative medicines – is responsible.

Sydney’s west has an immunisation rate of 90 per cent for five-year-olds but last financial year was home to 3600 children who were not fully immunised. In wealthy Manly, Mosman and eastern Sydney, however, fewer than 85 per cent of children are immunised in some age groups.The figures are contained in a National Health Performance Authority report.

The World Health Organisation says immunisation rates for measles must be above 93 per cent to prevent its spread. Immunisation expert Julie Leask says parents who perform extensive research and are often suspicious of medicine are more likely to object to vaccination.

“I think what these figures say is … you can’t rely on herd immunity in your region,” the University of Sydney academic said.

Australian Medical Association president Dr Steve Hambleton said the removal of an $18.50 government incentive for doctors to chase up unvaccinated children would exacerbate the problem.

New data on immunisation rates in smaller areas shows the Richmond Valley on the north coast, home to the anti-immunisation Australian Vaccination Network, has the lowest immunisation rate in the country. Only 82 per cent of one-year-olds are fully immunised, falling to just 80 per cent for two-year-olds and 75 per cent of five-year-olds.

NSW Health infectious diseases expert Dr Jeremy McAnulty said two children died on the north coast last year during a whooping cough epidemic that infected 24,000 people. Western and southwestern Sydney were also hard hit by a measles outbreak, with 199 cases last year.Naturopath and mother-of-two Genevieve Milton is convinced vaccines can be harmful and decided against immunising her sons.

Husband Darrell, however, is pro-vaccination and admits he is not entirely comfortable with the decision. “I don’t know I totally agree with her but if Gen wasn’t going into this armed with all the information that she obviously has, then I would be more against her,” he said.Mrs Milton believes she can best protect sons Cadel, 4, and Keanu, 21 months, by strengthening their immune system with good nutrition, vitamins and good hygiene.

She says her boys “line up every day for their echinacea and fish oil” and stresses white sugar and flour must be eliminated from children’s diets for a strong immune system to develop.

Albanese calls for debate on high-speed rail link

By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths, ABCUpdated April 11, 2013, 2:19 pm

tweet

Email
Print

Sydney rail passengers are being warned of delays with part of the Northern Line closed for repairs.
AAP © Enlarge photo

Related Links

: Drowning fears after bus plunges into river

: FIRST ON 7: Train app uses GPS technology

: FIRST ON 7: Train brakes putting lives at risk

The Federal Transport Minister says if a $114 billion high-speed railway line along the east coast is to happen, states and territories need to start reserving land now.

Anthony Albanese has released a final report into high-speed rail which proposes a 1,748-kilometre link connecting Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.

The Government is stressing it could not be built “tomorrow”, pointing to the estimated cost of $114 billion and a completion date of 2053 at the earliest.

Much of the cost, which is to be borne by federal and state and territory governments, would go towards building tunnels in the major centres.

Mr Albanese says it is up to state and territory ministers to start protecting the land so the line could become a reality.

“I don’t want to verbal state and territory ministers… but clearly the report envisages if it’s going to happen, that work has to begin now – in terms of once the report is considered by state and territory governments,” he said.

“Unless the route is protected now, the growth of cities and towns along the preferred corridor will make the project harder and more expensive in the future.

“So I believe route protection is absolutely vital.”

Under the plan, a trip between Canberra and Sydney would take just over an hour instead of the current three-hour rail journey.

If it was fully operational by 2065, as the report suggests, the estimated patronage is 83.6 million passengers a year.

Access to Sydney’s CBD would be the most challenging element, requiring 67 kilometres of tunnelling in and out of the city.

Mr Albanese says tunnelling was found to be the only viable option.

“It’s certainly a cracker of a tunnel – there’s no doubt about that,” he said.

“It’s difficult to see frankly, realistically, how you could have a corridor through a city that has developed as Sydney has, in a non-planned way – I mean Sydney is not Canberra.”

‘Challenges are harder’

Mr Albanese released the report saying the Government “hasn’t gilded the lily” and has pointed to the difficulties of building high-speed rail here compared to other countries.

“The challenges in Australia are more difficult than in countries which are talking about smaller routes with higher densities of populations,” he said.

“We’re not Japan; we’re not Europe. The challenges are harder, but nonetheless also the opportunities are there.”

The Minister says he believes “high-speed rail will happen in Australia” but the plan outlined is neither the Government’s position nor Labor Party policy.

He says the cost is substantial but would produce economic benefits.

“A return of around $2.30 on every $1 invested. This is a reasonable return,” he said.

Mr Albanese says he is proud the Government has had the “vision” to commission the report and has released it “without a political finesse”.

“There was no political interference in this report; it is what it is – out there for community debate to occur,” he said.

The Government has released the report for community consultation until June 30.

After that it is unclear what will happen, especially given the federal election campaign will begin just seven weeks later.

‘Horrendously expensive’

Opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss says the price tag is a huge barrier for the project.

He says he wants to check if the cost-benefit analysis is realistic.

“It’s certainly a great dream that people have been thinking about for a very long time but the cost of $114 billion estimated at this stage is obviously a huge barrier,” he said.

“The country has got $300 billion in gross debt and to find that extra money will obviously be a challenge.”

Griffith University’s research fellow Dr Matthew Burke agrees the cost could be a big stumbling block.

“It’s a horrendously expensive exercise,” he said.

“Just to get us involved in the east coast network to get from Newcastle and Brisbane will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 billion and at the upper end of the estimate that’s equivalent to the National Broadband Network,” he said.

But former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer says the line is feasible in spite of the huge price tag.

“On a Snowy Mountain Scheme calculated indexed for inflation, it is within reach,” he told ABC News Breakfast.

“It is a huge boost to transport infrastructure on two of the biggest city pairs in the world.”

Greens leader Christine Milne says the Government should now do an environmental impact assessment of the preferred route and set aside money to buy the land needed.

“I think it’s a practical option and an urgent [one] and I’m very excited by it,” she said.
“It’s why we did negotiate with Prime Minister Gillard to bring on high speed rail in Australia. One of the huge costs to business to the community is congestion through the airports, the time air travel is taking.”

Reported on ABC radio 702 this morning that local community

based groups were slow to respond to fire disasters in Tasmania.

The report also suggested that these groups be included in future

disaster planning. Some of the remarks expressed were unkind

and unfair to the groups concerned. It takes time for these groups

to get whatever action is necessary to provide whatever service

they can muster, usually at very short notice.

These groups consist of volunteers who give time and in some

cases personal funding, or revenue raised by raffles, cake stalls

and fetes. Volunteers are short on the ground and many move on

leaving a hard core of dedicated locals to carry out the excellent

work they do.

It is hard to visualise how these groups could be brought under

the umbrella of Govt. disaster plans. since they are unfunded.

Neville Gillmore

Nissan Navara ST-X 4×4 Dual Cab .
.

$114 billion fare for fastest rail link

EXCLUSIVE by Simon Benson
The Daily Telegraph
April 11, 2013 12:00AM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email
Share

5

THE federal government’s dream of a 350km/h rail link between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane would cost $114 billion and involve 67km of tunnels under the heart of Sydney.

It would also transform Australia by cutting travel time between Sydney and Brisbane to just two hours and 37 minutes, and two hours and 44 minutes between Sydney and Melbourne.

A final report into the project, which the Gillard government is expected to give in-principle agreement to, admits that nothing of its scale has been tried anywhere in Australia.

It claims most of the project would have to be funded by government, with the returns of about 1 per cent falling well short to make the project commercially viable.

The $20 million feasibility study commissioned in 2010, to be released today, outlines a regional route from Sydney to Brisbane with stops at Central Coast, Newcastle, Taree, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour before reaching the Gold Coast and then Brisbane – taking three hours and nine minutes.

It would reach the Central Coast in 27 minutes, Newcastle in 39 minutes and Coffs Harbour in 1 hour 50 minutes.

The express, travelling at a top speed of 350km/h and an average 300km/h, would take just two hours and 37 minutes.

To the south, it would stop at the Southern Highlands, Wagga Wagga, Albury-Wodonga and Shepparton before reaching Melbourne in three hours and three minutes, or, as an express, in two hours and 44 minutes.

It would also involve a spur line to Canberra, taking just over an hour from Sydney.

It is envisaged that by 2065, the service would cater for 111 million passenger trips, running 18 hours a day, all year. The report also said significant issues included noise pollution, while environmental and planning laws would also present hurdles.

The report estimates that 144km of tunnel would have to be built to carry the bullet train, with the largest single section of 67km underneath Sydney.

Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese, a proponent of an east coast high-speed line, welcomed the report and said it had the potential to be a “game changer” for the way Australians, live, work and holiday.

“It also has the capacity to better integrate our regional and metropolitan communities, ease congestion on our roads as well as provide a new foundation for a low carbon, high productivity economy,” Mr Albanese said.

“Already this technology is being rolled out across the globe with clear economic, productivity, lifestyles and environmental benefits.”

The report says that high-speed rail could produce economic benefits to Australia’s economy in the order of $2.30 for every dollar invested and cut carbon emissions from the transport sector.

The government will seek public comment until June 30 and set up a high level advisory group to consult with industry on how it could be delivered.

The Daily Telegraph did not seek comment from the Coalition on the report, according to a strict condition of the government releasing the report.

The condition comes two days after Communications Minister Stephen Conroy criticised The Daily Telegraph for not seeking his comment before the release of a Coalition NBN policy.

Global Solar Photovoltaic Industry Is Likely Now a Net Energy Producer

Apr. 8, 2013 — The rapid growth of the solar power industry over the past decade may have exacerbated the global warming situation it was meant to soothe, simply because most of the energy used to manufacture the millions of solar panels came from burning fossil fuels. That irony, according to Stanford University researchers, is coming to an end.

——————————————————————————–

Share This:

2

Related Ads:
•PV Solar Energy
•More Energy
•Energy Costs
•Wind Energy

See Also:

Matter & Energy
•Solar Energy
•Energy Technology

Earth & Climate
•Energy and the Environment
•Renewable Energy

Science & Society
•Energy Issues
•Environmental Policies

Reference
•Biomass
•Solar panel
•Desalination
•Renewable energy

For the first time since the boom started, the electricity generated by all of the world’s installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels last year probably surpassed the amount of energy going into fabricating more modules, according to Michael Dale, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Global Climate & Energy Project (GCEP). With continued technological advances, the global PV industry is poised to pay off its debt of energy as early as 2015, and no later than 2020.

“This analysis shows that the industry is making positive strides,” said Dale, who developed a novel way of assessing the industry’s progress globally in a study published in the current edition of Environmental Science & Technology. “Despite its fantastically fast growth rate, PV is producing — or just about to start producing — a net energy benefit to society.”

The achievement is largely due to steadily declining energy inputs required to manufacture and install PV systems, according to co-author Sally Benson, GCEP’s director. The new study, Benson said, indicates that the amount of energy going into the industry should continue to decline, while the issue remains an important focus of research.

“GCEP is focused on developing game-changing energy technologies that can be deployed broadly. If we can continue to drive down the energy inputs, we will derive greater benefits from PV,” she said. “Developing new technologies with lower energy requirements will allow us to grow the industry at a faster rate.”

The energy used to produce solar panels is intense. The initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.

As investment and technological development have risen sharply with the number of installed panels, the energetic costs of new PV modules have declined. Thinner silicon wafers are now used to make solar cells, less highly refined materials are now used as the silicon feedstock, and less of the costly material is lost in the manufacturing process. Increasingly, the efficiency of solar cells using thin film technologies that rely on earth-abundant materials such as copper, zinc, tin and carbon have the potential for even greater improvements.

To be considered a success — or simply a positive energy technology — PV panels must ultimately pay back all the energy that went into them, said Dale. The PV industry ran an energy deficit from 2000 to now, consuming 75 percent more energy than it produced just five years ago. The researchers expect this energy debt to be paid off as early as 2015, thanks to declining energy inputs, more durable panels and more efficient conversion of sunlight into electricity.

Strategic implications

If current rapid growth rates persist, by 2020 about 10 percent of the world’s electricity could be produced by PV systems. At today’s energy payback rate, producing and installing the new PV modules would consume around 9 percent of global electricity. However, if the energy intensity of PV systems continues to drop at its current learning rate, then by 2020 less than 2 percent of global electricity will be needed to sustain growth of the industry.

This may not happen if special attention is not given to reducing energy inputs. The PV industry’s energetic costs can differ significantly from its financial costs. For example, installation and the components outside the solar cells, like wiring and inverters, as well as soft costs like permitting, account for a third of the financial cost of a system, but only 13 percent of the energy inputs. The industry is focused primarily on reducing financial costs.

Continued reduction of the energetic costs of producing PV panels can be accomplished in a variety of ways, such as using less materials or switching to producing panels that have much lower energy costs than technologies based on silicon. The study’s data covers the various silicon-based technologies as well as newer ones using cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium diselenide as semiconductors. Together, these types of PV panels account for 99 percent of installed panels.

The energy payback time can also be reduced by installing PV panels in locations with high quality solar resources, like the desert Southwest in the United States and the Middle East. “At the moment, Germany makes up about 40 percent of the installed market, but sunshine in Germany isn’t that great,” Dale said. “So from a system perspective, it may be better to deploy PV systems where there is more sunshine.”

This accounting of energetic costs and benefits, say the researchers, should be applied to any new energy-producing technology, as well as to energy conservation strategies that have large upfront energetic costs, such as retrofitting buildings. GCEP researchers have begun applying the analysis to energy storage and wind power.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google: