Author: admin
-
Demand for water tanks increases
The drought is also increasing demand for water tanks from farmers.
They are not being used to collect rainwater, but to hold water being trucked in to properties across Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.
Ross Hendy from Tankworld in north-west Victoria says around 250 tanks are being sold each week, and there is a six-week wait for them.
"Instead of running one shift we are running two, we are currently looking at possibly running three and we are obviously putting more trucks on the road so we can get the product to our clients quicker," he said.
© 2006 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Copyright information: http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm -
Solar cell manufacture goes offshore
Origin Energy has confirmed that commercial manufacture of the Australian National University’s solar sliver cell technology is poised to go offshore, possibly to Germany or the United States, to capitalise on government investment incentives for solar energy in those countries, reported The Canberra Times (3 October 2006, p.1).
"Clients of our own technology": The article says renewable energy experts say the move offshore will deprive Australia of a big slice of the world’s rapidly expanding solar technology market, estimated to be worth more than $100 billion by 2010. "We will become clients of our own technology, importing back the expertise we lost," Murdoch University’s Professor of Energy Studies Dr Philip Jennings said.
The technology: The wafer-thin solar sliver cells were invented by ANU researchers Professor Andrew Blakers and Dr Klaus Weber, with support from Dr Vernie Everett, of the ANU and the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence. The sliver cells will cut the cost of photovoltaic panels by around 75 per cent by using 90 per cent less silicon.
Its potential: Their potential to make photovoltaic panels more affordable and accelerate uptake of solar energy has been compared to the global information revolution created by the internet search engine Google.
"Show me the money": Origin Energy acquired the base patent for the sliver cells from ANU and has invested more than $30 million to commercialise the technology, including building a pilot plant in Adelaide. But Origin’s general manager Tony Wood told The Canberra Times that an investment of more than $100 million was needed to scale up to commercial manufacture of the technology.
The Canberra Times, 3/10/2006, p. 1
Source: Erisk Net
-
The car that runs on sunshine
Sick of forking out to fill your car with petrol? European carmaker Venturi may have the vehicle for you. The firm, based in Monaco, has unveiled what it says is the world’s first commercially-available, high-performance solar vehicle, capable of speeds up to 120 km/h.
Dont’ forget your sunnies! Driver and passenger
sit in tandem, in the middle of the solar panel.Unveiled at the 2006 Paris Motor Show, the Astrolab looks a cross between a Formula 1 racing vehicle and the hot water panel from your neighbour’s roof.
Spread over its ultra-lightweight chassis are 3.6 m2 of efficient solar cells covered with what the company says is a ”unique nano-prismic film”.
It claims the two combine to efficently harness the power of the sun, storing it as electricity in on-board batteries. The batteries then drive the vehicle’s 21-horsepower electric motor. The batteries can also be recharged from the electricity grid.
Venturi claims the vehicle, which has a range of 110 km, is carbon neutral.
”This is (the) very first vehicle that consumes no (fossil fuels) in order to work,” it boasts on its website. ”The emissions of CO2 required for its construction will even be compensated for by environmental actions.”
The vehicles may be available for delivery as early as 2008, at a price of about $150,000.
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
-
In Case I Disappear
It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.
So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.
Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.
Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.
It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, "Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place."
It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself.
The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.
Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.
Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has been established by this legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an "enemy combatant" anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."
Consider that language a moment. "Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror."
If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.
By writing this essay, I could be deemed an "enemy combatant." It’s that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I’m not laughing anymore.
In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.
That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America’s Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress.