EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Australian rivers need your protection

    CEO Matt Reddy says this is a fantastic time for people in all areas of Australia to simply stop and celebrate how vital rivers are to the community. People are being encouraged to organise a fundraiser or celebration of their choosing with a river theme.  There are many ideas for people to see at www.riverfoundation.org.au.
    The website will show people exactly how to get involved. People can either then donate funds to a local project in the local area or donate money to the International RiverFoundation for overall river awareness and river restoration projects.
    Matt Reddy says taking action is far and away the best way to help rivers. He points out rivers are integral to all our lives as they are closely linked with the tourism industry, jobs, agriculture and many other industries.
    Tammy van Wisse is a huge supporter of rivers – water is her “office”. Tammy said, “We all need to get behind our rivers – they’re a part of our national backbone. Our rivers cannot speak up for themselves. That’s why we are doing this project. We can all speak up and do something.”
    Rivers provide billions of dollars to the economy – especially rural economies.  The Murray Darling Basin is estimated to produce one third of all food produced in Australia – it’sAustralia’s “food basket” and the nation’s agricultural heartland.   It is estimated over 3 million people rely on the Murray Darling for their everyday drinking water.
    Matt Reddy says rivers are literally the veins of Australia – highlighting a huge number of industries in Australia depend on healthy rivers including our food industries; fruit, milk, rice and many more.
    Churches and other religious groups are also being urged to consider a special service with a river theme for World Rivers Day, which will happen over the weekend of Sunday September 25th.
    Matt Reddy said, “We hope local churches and other religious institutions will also consider a special service dedicated to or mentioning rivers and why they are important, especially the role they play in the major faiths. We hope schools pause and have a closer look and study a local river.”
    Olympic Gold swimming legend Duncan Armstrong said, “As a father I’m very aware that our rivers need to be nurtured for future generations. You can fundraise for your own river.  All of the administration is done through a simple online system.  We are looking for people who want to be an “Everyday Hero”.  Everyday Heroes are everywhere and this is about raising critical funds to help rivers and waterways managers.”
    “Funding will help with plantings, re-vegetation, bank stabilisation and more.  By supporting your local river, you will be helping keep waterways clean for future generations.”
    Ideas for fundraisers, to support World Rivers Day, include film nights, toastings to our rivers, showcasing local produce, fishing days, clean ups, riverside barbeques, river cycles, river walks and more.
    Matt Reddy said, “Fresh water is a scarce and precious resource.  Our rivers house numerous iconic species – everything from yabbies and barramundi to platypus and the ancientQueensland lung fish.  Our precious rivers are also a playground.  People love to fish, row, paint, pan for gold or simply walk along rivers.”
    The International RiverFoundation highlights that whilst Australians unquestionably love our rivers the blunt reality is many rivers are suffering damage with wetlands being destroyed, riverbanks eroding and water bird species disappearing.
    Matt Reddy says our rivers have been punished and need much more restoration work because they are the backbone of our nation and are central to our national character.
    Matt Reddy says there’s been a clear legacy of abuse and neglect. He says some rivers have been used as open sewers, industrial drains and waste dumping grounds. It’s estimated by the National River Health Program that at least 31% of Australian rivers have now suffered a level of either minor or major damage.
    The River Foundation also points out that Australia has the highest variability of river flows anywhere in the world – so we must be more sensitive as to how we use our freshwater resources.  Figures show 16 of the 30 species of native fish in the Murray Darling system are now threatened with 1 species critically endangered.  Less than 10% of Murray Cod,Australia’s most iconic fish, are left.
    World Rivers Day highlights the many values of rivers and focuses on increasing public awareness.  Various agencies of the United Nations have endorsed World Rivers Day. Its origins started in British Columbia when Canada held a rivers day which grew to over 100,000 people helping.
    Comedy legend Mark Mitchell said, “Investing in our rivers today is clearly investing in tomorrow. We’re all aware that we are the driest continent on Earth so we know water is so important to our nation. We feel rivers are being overlooked. Every dollar invested in river protection saves ten dollars in restoration.”
    Matt Reddy added, “The first rule of rehabilitation is to avoid the damage in the first place! It is easy, quick and costs no money to damage natural streams. It is hard, slow and expensive to return them to their original state”
    “It takes only one person with a bulldozer to damage a stream, but it can take many volunteers, landholders, engineers, biologists, geomorphologists, botanists and public-servants to fix it again.”
    “In the past two centuries alone building and the huge clearing of native vegetation has dramatically affected our rivers. River water quality has been affected. River flows have been drastically reduced. Rivers have been under assault by carp – the rabbits of our rivers and invasive weeds like blackberry are choking up vast areas of pristine river landscapes. Huge dollars are now needed to reverse this damage and to get more vegetation happening. Restoration is the key.”
    “On a global scale it deeply alarms me to see a University of Western Australia report suggesting 80% of the world’s population now live in areas where rivers are simply classified as highly threatened.  The report indicates the world’s rivers are heading towards a crisis where thousands of species of plants and animals are at risk of extinction.”
    “We sometimes forget how critical water is. For instance 1kg of Australian beef requires around 100,000 litres of water to produce and 1kg of butter uses up around 80,000 litres of water.”
    “In New South Wales it is estimated over 85% of rivers have been degraded to some extent by human activity.  South Australia has already lost 75% of its wetlands.  Huge quantities of salt are now flowing down the River Murray every day.  On average 1,000 tonnes of salt per day enter the River Murray in SA alone.”
    Matt Reddy added, “We know we have got big problems. The answers all lie in action. Do something – make a difference. Stop and celebrate our rivers. Whether it’s a barbeque or any kind of event by the river, focus on your local river and celebrate why it’s such an important part of our nation. Our rivers deserve nothing less.”
    Joining in is simple.  Just go to www.riverfoundation.org.au
    Media enquiries to Media Key on 03 9769 6488.

    Some of the activities held across the world last year
    for World Rivers Day
    • British Colombia, Canada – invasive plant species were part of the focus at the Coquitlam River.
    • California, USA – the American River – 20 different locations removed over 15,000 lbs of debris from the river.
    • British Colombia, Canada – the township of Langley had a huge festival including streamside tree planting, salmon displays and more.
    • Yamuna River – India – river paddle trips, planting along the riverbanks and a plastic debris clean up were part of the focus.
    • Cameroon, Africa – a river education program with river education for kids was part of the program.
    • Pencala River, Malaysia – a huge event included river mapping and a river clean up not far from Kuala Lumpur.
    • French Broad River, North Carolina, USA – river link got river lovers to toast to the river with other activities.
    • Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada – a special safe drinking water event included films and more.
    • Island of Dominica, Caribbean – their themes were “Where have our 365 rivers gone?”
    • Patagonia, Chile – local townspeople had a big celebration to honour their local waterway – the Baker River.

  • Hunger Games and cars before people

     

    Hunger Games and cars before people

    Published August 14, 2012 | By John James

    If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

    www.planetextinction.com

    The rich world is causing the famines it claims to be preventing, by George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 14th August 2012

    I don’t blame Mo Farah, Pele and Haile Gebrselassie, who lined up, all hugs and smiles, outside Downing Street for a photocall at the prime minister’s hunger summit. Perhaps they were unaware of the way in which they were being used to promote his corporate and paternalistic approach to overseas aid. Perhaps they were also unaware of the crime against humanity over which he presides. Perhaps Cameron himself is unaware of it.

    You should by now have heard about the famine developing in the Sahel region of West Africa. Poor harvests and high food prices threaten the lives of some 18 million people. The global price of food is likely to rise still further, as a result of low crop yields in the United States, caused by the worst drought in 50 years. World cereal prices, in response to this disaster, climbed 17% last month.

    We have been cautious about attributing such events to climate change: perhaps too cautious. A new paper by James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, shows that there has been a sharp increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers. Between 1951 and 1980 these events affected between 0.1 and 0.2% of the world’s land surface each year. Now, on average, they affect 10%. Hansen explains that “the odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small”. Both the droughts in the Sahel and the US crop failures are likely to be the result of climate change.

    But this is not the only sense in which the rich world’s use of fuel is causing the poor to starve. In the United Kingdom, in the rest of the European Union and in the United States, governments have chosen to deploy a cure as bad as the disease. Despite overwhelming evidence of the harm their policy is causing, none of them will change course.

    Biofuels are the means by which governments in the rich world avoid hard choices. Rather than raise fuel economy standards as far as technology allows, rather than promoting a shift from driving to public transport, walking and cycling, rather than insisting on better town planning to reduce the need to travel, they have chosen to exchange our wild overconsumption of petroleum for the wild overconsumption of fuel made from crops. No one has to drive less or make a better car: everything remains the same except the source of fuel. The result is a competition between the world’s richest and poorest consumers, a contest between overconsumption and survival. There was never any doubt about which side would win.

    I’ve been banging on about this since 2004, and everything I warned of then has happened. The US and the European Union have both set targets and created generous financial incentives for the use of biofuels. The results have been a disaster for people and the planet.

    Already, 40% of US corn (maize) production is used to feed cars. The proportion will rise this year as a result of the smaller harvest. Though the market for biodiesel is largely confined to the European Union, it has already captured seven per cent of the world’s output of vegetable oil. The European Commission admits that its target (10% of transport fuels by 2020) will raise world cereal prices by between 3 and 6%. Oxfam estimates that with every 1% increase in the price of food, another 16 million people go hungry.

    By 2021, the OECD says, 14% of the world’s maize and other coarse grains, 16% of its vegetable oil and 34% of its sugarcane will be used to make people in the gas guzzling nations feel better about themselves. The demand for biofuel will be met, it reports, partly through an increase in production; partly through a “reduction in human consumption.” The poor will starve so that the rich can drive.

    The rich world’s demand for biofuels is already causing a global land grab. ActionAid estimates that European companies have now seized five million hectares of farmland – an area the size of Denmark – in developing countries for industrial biofuel production. Small farmers, growing food for themselves and local markets, have been thrown off their land and destituted. Tropical forests, savannahs and grasslands have been cleared to plant what the industry still calls “green fuels”.

    When the impacts of land clearance and the use of nitrogen fertilisers are taken into account, biofuels produce more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels do. The UK, which claims that half the biofuel sold here meets its sustainability criteria, solves this problem by excluding the greenhouse gas emissions caused by changes in land use. Its sustainability criteria are, as a result, worthless.

    Even second generation biofuels, made from crop wastes or wood, are an environmental disaster, either extending the cultivated area or removing the straw and stovers which protect the soil from erosion and keep carbon and nutrients in the ground. The combination of first and second generation biofuels – encouraging farmers to plough up grasslands and to leave the soil bare – and hot summers could create the perfect conditions for a new dust bowl.

    Our government knows all this. One of its own studies shows that if the European Union stopped producing biofuels, the amount of vegetable oils it exported to world markets would rise by 20% and the amount of wheat by 33%, reducing world prices.

    Preparing for the prime minister’s hunger summit on Sunday, the international development department argued that, with a rising population, “the food production system will need to be radically overhauled, not just to produce more food but to produce it sustainably and fairly to ensure that the poorest people have the access to food that they need.” But another government department – transport – boasts on its website that, thanks to its policies, drivers in this country have now used 4.4 billion litres of biofuel. Of this 30% was produced from recycled cooking oil. The rest consists of 3 billion litres of refined energy snatched from the mouths of the people that David Cameron claims to be helping.

    Some of those to whom the government is now extending its “nutrition interventions” may have been starved by its own policies. In this and other ways, David Cameron, with the unwitting support of various sporting heroes, is offering charity, not justice. And that is no basis for liberating the poor.

    Posted in Consumerism, Environmental activism, Population, Refugees

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: 

     

     

  • North West railway line, Sydney

    Announced on channel 10 news this evening. A whole row of houses and a newly constructed day centre in a whole street in Cherrybrook will be demolished to accommodate the new proposed North West Rail Line.


    North West railway line, Sydney

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    		 It has been proposed that North West railway line, Sydney be renamed and moved (Discuss).
    For the proposed rapid transit line, see North West Metro.
    North West Rail Link
    CityRailconstruction.png
    Mode Commuter rail
    proposed
    Owner RailCorp
    Connects Epping, Hills Centre, Rouse Hill
    Length 23 km
    Stations 6 planned; 8 possible
    Key dates
    1998 Line announced
    2008 Changed to North West Metro, later cancelled
    2010 Line re-announced
    2014 Start of major tunnelling work
    2019 or 2020 Line opened

    North West Rail Link is a proposal for a heavy rail link to the north-western suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It is proposed to connect Rouse Hill to Epping via Castle Hill. The project is being managed by Transport for New South Wales, an agency of the Government of New South Wales.

    Contents

    [hide]

    [edit] History

    [edit] Original proposal

    The North West Rail Link was originally announced on 23 November 1998 by the then-Transport Minister in the Carr Labor Government, Carl Scully, and was part of an A$2.6 billion package of eight major rail projects due for construction by 2010 dubbed the Action for Transport 2010.[1] At the time, the proposal was for a $360 million heavy rail connection from Epping to Castle Hill, with potential extension to Mungerie Park and Rouse Hill after 2010.

    Delays in 2000 by the Carr Government in releasing a draft report on the proposal led to concern about the viability of the proposed route.[2] This led to a deadlock between the State Government and Baulkham Hills Shire Council regarding construction of the $200 million Mungerie Park industrial and residential development at Kellyville. On 5 June 2000 the Council voted to defer planning approval for the Mungerie Park development until the State Government demonstrated a commitment to improve local transport infrastructure, which included building the North West rail link. In response, the State Government threatened to remove the Council’s planning powers for the Rouse Hill Development Area if planning approval was not granted.[3]

    Member for the then-State electorate of The Hills, Michael Richardson, submitted a Freedom of Information request for the draft report on 3 November 2000. The State Government had not responded to the request by 13 December 2000, well beyond the 21 day response limit, leading to accusations that the Government was trying to hide something.[4] The State Government formally rejected the Freedom of Information request on 9 January 2001, despite acknowledging that release of the report would be in the public interest.[5][6] As a result, the NSW Ombudsman began an investigation into NSW Transport’s refusal to release the report.

    News reports from March 2001 suggested that cost estimates for the Action for Transport 2010 plan had blown out so much that the scope of the plan was now reduced to an Epping to Chatswood rail link due for completion in 2008. The completion date for the Parramatta to Epping section of the original Parramatta to Chatswood link was unspecified, which meant that the North West rail link proposal was effectively deferred indefinitely—it would not be built until the Parramatta to Chatswood link was completed.[7] The Action for Transport 2010 cost blowout was seen as the reason for the State Government’s refusal to release the draft report into the North West rail link route.[8]

    According to Member for The Hills, Michael Richardson, the then-Premier Bob Carr effectively confirmed that the Epping to Castle Hill rail link was dead during a session of Parliament on 27 March 2001 when he refused to answer a specific question about the details of the proposed rail link.[9] There was no mention of the rail link in the 2001 budget, released the week of 30 May.[10]

    A 2002 NSW Treasury report mentioned the North West rail link, and that it was “under development or investigation”, but no estimate of cost or start date were provided.[11] On 10 March 2002, Transport Minister Carl Scully released a report detailing the preferred route alignment.[12] The 19 km (12 mi) route was proposed to run from Epping to Mungerie Park at Rouse Hill via Castle Hill. The cost of construction was estimated at $1.4 billion.

    Public consultation on the proposal was conducted over eight weeks from 10 March to 3 May 2002.[13][14] The consultation received 118 written submissions, 73% of which were in favour of the project proceeding, and only 5% strongly opposed the project.

    On 3 October 2002, the Minister announced a feasibility study for an extension of the proposed route beyond Rouse Hill to meet the existing Richmond Line.[13]

    Various studies in support of the Epping to Castle Hill link were made during 2003; most of this work related to the proposed alignment of the route.[15] It was revealed on 12 August 2003 that Railcorp was considering a new $6 billion rail link that would connect Hornsby with Campbelltown via the Sydney CBD and that the North West rail link could form an extension to this route.[16]

    On 9 June 2005 the State Government announced the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Plan (MREP), an $8 billion plan to add three new railway lines to the CityRail network over the following 15 years. The North West Rail Link was one of the proposed railway lines, the other two being the South West Rail Link and the CBD Rail Link.[17] In 2005 the schedule was revised and a new completion date of 2017 was set.[18]

    In 2006 the construction schedule was revised with a new completion date of 2017. In April 2006, the NSW Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation released the North West Rail Link Project Application and Preliminary Environmental Assessment in support of the planning approval process.[17] On 20 November 2006, the government announced a staged plan for the North West Rail Link with train services to Castle Hill and Hills Centre in 2015, two years ahead of the original completion date of 2017.

    [edit] Cancellation and North West Metro

    In March 2008, the Government changed the project to a metro line dubbed the North West Metro and expanded the line to run all the way to the Sydney CBD via the suburbs of Ryde, Gladesville, Drummoyne and Pyrmont. On 23 October 2008, the NSW Government announced the CBD Metro instead, a shortened version of the North West Metro which would run from Rozelle to Central station, and the project was submitted to Infrastructure Australia for funding. It was announced that North West Metro may be extended to link from Rozelle Station to Epping and Macquarie Park in the future if the CBD Metro was built. Then, on 31 October 2008, the NSW Government announced that the North West Metro would be indefinitely deferred due to budgetary cuts.[19]

    [edit] Resumption of original proposal

    On 21 February 2010, two and a half months after Kristina Keneally had become Premier, the NSW Government revealed the cancellation of the Sydney Metro project in its Metropolitan Transport Plan[20][21] and returned to the North West Rail Link proposal. At the time, construction was anticipated to begin in 2017.

    In August 2010 the State Government applied to Infrastructure Australia for funding to accelerate the delivery of the project, but no funding was granted.[18]

    [edit] 2011 Liberal Government proposal

    Following his victory in the NSW state election on 26 March 2011, newly-elected Premier Barry O’Farrell announced that his first order of business would be to start construction on the North West Rail Link.[22] On 6 April 2011, Premier O’Farrell and newly-installed Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian announced the project team that will be responsible for construction and delivery of the North West Rail Link.[23] It is expected that initial planning and geotechnical investigation of the route corridor will begin by the end of 2011,[24][25] with construction beginning before the 2015 state election. Some doubt these estimates and believe a construction start date in 2017 is more realistic[26].

    [edit] Call for tenders

    On 15 May 2011, Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian announced that a tender had been called for engineering, rail systems and architecture services.[27][28] A tender was called on 6 June 2011 for a financial and commercial services specialist.[29] The tender documents indicate the Government’s desire to appoint a financial adviser to examine the possibility of securing funding from private sources.[30] As of July 2011, the preferred financial model (public-private partnership or otherwise) is unknown, but it is anticipated that the Government will finalise the funding plan by the end of 2011. As of 5 July 2011, no application for federal funding had been made to Infrastructure Australia, despite the need for federal funds for the project to proceed.[31]

    Tenders were called on 10 June 2011 for a range of services including geotechnical work, master planning and urban design, scheduling and planning support, integrated transport and land use services, and legal services.[24][25][32]

    Applications for the first six of twelve tenders closed the week of 8 July 2011 with 44 proposals having been received from a range of Australian and international companies.[33][34] The first six tenders were for financial services, geotechnical investigations, integrated transport and land use studies, scheduling and program support, legal services, and master planning and urban design.[33] As part of the tender process, applicants were asked to demonstrate how they would design station precincts at the Rouse Hill, Samantha Riley Drive and Cudgegong Road sites.[34] The geotechnical information is required to determine the best method of tunnelling through the Hawkesbury sandstone that underlies much of the Sydney basin[25].

    Gladys Berejiklian announced on 14 July 2011 that the first major tender—for design services—had been awarded to a consortium led by AECOM Australia Pty. Ltd.[35][36][37][38] AECOM will be supported by Cox Architects Pty. Ltd., Grimshaw Architects and Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty. Ltd. The consortium will be tasked with investigating route alignment options, rail systems, tunnel design, station locations and infrastructure planning.[36][37] AECOM also lodged applications for the master plan and integrated transport tenders.[38]

    Consulting firm Turner & Townsend were awarded the tender for cost planning services on 22 July 2011.[39][40][41] According to Turner & Townsend, the company’s role will be to “manage the project budget and demonstrate to the taxpayer that they are receiving maximum value for money”.[40]

    [edit] Establishment of Community Information Centre

    On 8 June 2011, Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian announced that the North West Rail Link Community Information Centre would be established on Old Northern Road at Castle Hill.[42] The information centre officially opened on 29 June 2011 and is located opposite the Castle Towers shopping centre on Old Northern Road.[43] In its first fortnight of operation, the information centre received 453 visitors, an average of 35 per day.[44] The Premier Barry O’Farrell announced on Twitter on 28 July 2011 that around 700 people had visited the Centre in its first month of operation.[45]

    [edit] Impasse over Federal funding

    The Federal Government refuses to commit any funding to the North West Rail Link because it favours completion of the Parramatta to Epping section of the Parramatta to Chatswood route.[46] The refusal dates back to a promise made during the 2010 Federal election campaign—on 11 August 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that the Federal Government would fund 80 per cent ($2.1 billion) of the construction of the Parramatta to Epping rail link if it were elected at the Federal election on 21 August 2010,[47][48][49] despite the Prime Minister’s revelation on 16 August 2010 that the plan was not formally approved by the Federal Cabinet before the announcement was made.[50]

    Premier Barry O’Farrell asked Prime Minister Julia Gillard in his first official meeting with her after becoming Premier in April 2011 to divert the Federal funds allocated to the Parramatta to Epping rail link to the North West Rail Link project.[51] Despite this, the Federal Government did not allocate any funds to the North West Rail Link in the 2011 Budget.[52] At least part of the reason for the snub, apart from the Federal Government’s transport priorities, is the fact that the O’Farrell State Government did not submit a project proposal for the North West Rail Link to Infrastructure Australia[53].

    Results of a cost-benefit analysis released in November 2011 indicate that the North West Rail Link will be three times more beneficial to New South Wales than the Federal Government’s preferred Parramatta to Epping extension[54]. The report also indicated that the cost of constructing the Parramatta–Epping line would cost $1.78 billion more than initially expected.

    Infrastructure Australia formally rejected Infrastructure NSW’s request for $2.1 billion in funding in May 2012, saying the project is “not the highest priority” transport project for Sydney. Instead, Infrastructure Australia suggested an expansion of the bus network and better transport links with Parramatta[55]. Infrastructure Australia cited the lack of a completed proposal and lack of information on cost, infrastructure and development as reasons for the rejection[56]. The State Government has vowed to build the line anyway[57][56].

    [edit] 2011-12 State Budget

    The NSW Government allocated $314 million towards the North West Rail Link in the 2011-12 State Budget. $222 million of this will go towards buying land along the proposed route alignment [58]. $2.5 billion was provisionally allocated to the North West Rail Link over the next four years[59].

    [edit] Commencement of geotechnical work

    Coffey Geotechnics supported by AECOM were awarded the tender for geotechnical drilling services in August 2011, and drilling began on 7 September 2011. A drilling rig was set up in a park opposite the Castle Towers shopping centre at Castle Hill, where one of the underground stations will be built[60]. At least 150 boreholes with a diameter of up to 15 centimetres (5.9 in) will be drilled up to 75 metres (246 ft) deep along the proposed alignment between Epping and Rouse Hill in order to develop an understanding of the geological profile[59]. The drilling is anticipated to take about 9 weeks to complete[61].

    [edit] Operation of line

    As of December 2011, the State Government had not ruled out the possibility of contracting the operation, rolling stock and signalling on the North West Rail Link to private operators as part of a public-private partnership[62].

    We are focused on the longer term rail options. It’s got to work as a single network, the whole network, but we are looking at private sector involvement in those as well. And we’ve got an open mind.
    —Les Wielinga, Director-General, Transport NSW

    It is currently unclear, if the line is to be privately operated, how services would integrate with the rest of the CityRail network.

     

    [edit] Skytrain proposal

    It was announced by the Liberal State Government on 13 December 2011 that the line will be proposed as a skytrain line which would allow roads and some houses to remain in place without the need to do zoning work. The proposal also states that the line will be built above ground between Bella Vista and Rouse Hill and the other 19 kilometres of the line would be built underground in tunnels.

    Also, under the proposal it would enable to station around 4000 new car parking facilities. [63]

    [edit] Proposed route

    [edit] Original proposal

    Diagram of the North West Rail Link. The line is marked in black.

    The original North West Rail Link route proposal was planned to be 22 km (14 mi) in length, consisting of a 16 km (9.9 mi) tunnel (underground) section from Epping to the proposed Burns Road Station, followed by a 4 km (2.5 mi) section above ground from Burns Road Station (now Kellyville Station) to Rouse Hill. A train stabling facility was proposed to the north west of Rouse Hill Town Centre. The latest version of the original proposal proposed to connect the North West Rail Link alignment to the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link via a tunnel between Epping and Franklin Road (now Cherrybrook) stations, whereas the earliest version of the original proposal had the route alignment connect with the existing Northern Line north of Cheltenham.[64] The direct route proposed using the stub tunnels originally built for the deferred Parramatta Rail Link between Parramatta and Epping.[64] New stub tunnels for the Parramatta Rail Link were to be constructed so that if the Epping to Parramatta line were completed, trains from Parramatta would have also been able to link into the Epping-Chatswood Line.[64]

    Six new stations were proposed along the North West Rail Link:

    The line was scheduled to open in two stages: the first stage from Epping to Hills Centre Station was scheduled for completion by 2015 (originally 2017), and the second stage from Hills Centre to Rouse Hill Station was scheduled for completion by 2017. Construction was scheduled to begin in 2010. The original proposal called for off-peak rail service of four trains per hour, with six to eight trains per hour in peak periods. The route was expected to carry six to eight million passengers per year.

    The line was originally part of the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program (MREP) proposed by the Carr Labor Government in 2005.[65] The MREP included the South West Rail Link, North West Rail Link and the CBD Rail Link and was intended to augment transport links between the major new growth and employment areas of the Sydney metropolitan region. The route proposal was abandoned in 2008 by the Iemma Labor Government in favour of the development of a metro-style rapid transit system.[65][66]

    • Original proposed station at Castle Hill

    • Franklin Road station proposal in the original North West Rail Link

    [edit] 2011 proposal

    The route proposal put forward in May 2011 by the State Government is a 23 km (14 mi) route that calls for six new stations, and the possibility of two more at some point in the future.[18][67] The proposed stations are:

    • (connection with existing CityRail system at Epping)
    • Cherrybrook
    • Castle Hill
    • Hills Centre
    • Norwest 1
    • Norwest 2[68]
    • Kellyville (Burns Road)[68]
    • Samantha Riley Drive (possible)
    • Rouse Hill
    • Cudgegong Road (possible)

    The current proposed stations are listed below[69]:

    • (connection with existing CityRail system at Epping)
    • Cherrybrook
    • Castle Hill
    • Hills Centre
    • Norwest
    • Bella Vista
    • Kellyville
    • Rouse Hill
    • Cudgegong Road

    Cherrybrook, Castle Hill, Hills Centre and Norwest stations will be underground, whereas Kellyville and Rouse Hill will be above ground. The twin tunnels between Epping and Kellyville, at 15.5 km (9.6 mi) long,[18] will be the longest rail tunnels in Sydney when they are built.[24] They will also be the deepest tunnels in Sydney: 67 m (220 ft) below ground at the deepest point below the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Castle Hill Road—deeper than the floor of Sydney harbour (about 50 m (160 ft)), and much deeper than the deepest point of the City Circle tunnels at St James (about 11 m (36 ft)).[70] Most of the tunnel will be bored, although the section at Kellyville will be constructed using cut-and-cover techniques.[70][71] As of December 2011, tunnelling is expected to begin in 2014, subject to planning approval[72].

    A new train stabling yard will be constructed at Tallawong Road in Rouse Hill, with room for 16 trainsets.

    3,000 new parking spaces will be provided across proposed carparks at Cherrybrook, Hills Centre and Kellyville stations.[18]

    [edit] Service frequency

    Services will run seven days per week.[18] A report released in July 2011 indicates that upon opening of the line, four to six trains per hour will connect Rouse Hill station with Chatswood station via Epping.[73][74] Of these, only as few as 2 trains per hour will be able to continue from Chatswood to the CBD due to capacity constraints on the North Shore line.[75]

    [edit] Possible future extensions

    Previously there were long term plans to extend the proposed heavy-rail North West Rail Link to meet the existing Richmond branch of the Western Line near Vineyard.[76] However, the location of the alignments were never finalised and further investigation and studies would have been required.

    Recent State Government documents, dated 13 May 2011, suggest an intention to eventually extend the line to meet the Western Line near Schofields.[67] A Transport Department report dated 9 June 2011 shed more light on such plans, suggesting an extension of the North West Rail Link beyond Rouse Hill to meet the Richmond line at Schofields, Riverstone, or beyond.[77] If the extension is built, it would likely service the planned Sydney Business Park at Marsden Park, and make RAAF Base Richmond a more viable option for a second Sydney airport.

    [edit] Criticism

    • Transport experts suggest that unless a second heavy rail link is built across Sydney Harbour from the North Shore to the CBD, the North West Rail Link will only increase congestion on the existing North Shore Line, which crosses the Sydney Harbour Bridge.[78] That a second harbour crossing is necessary has been known for some time.[12][79][80] This is because the Sydney Harbour Bridge can only accommodate 20 trains per hour, and currently already sees 18 services per hour during peak periods.[75] In addition, it is expected that passenger congestion on existing North Shore line services will increase because CBD-bound passengers on North West Rail Link services that terminate at Chatswood will be forced to transfer to the North Shore line services to continue their journeys.
    • Concern has been expressed that the proposed configuration of the North West Rail Link will not allow eastbound trains coming off the new alignment at Epping to continue south on the existing Northern Line to Strathfield station.[74] This will affect the number of trains per hour that the North West Rail Link can accommodate.
    • E-mails originating within the NSW Treasury by Principal Financial Anlayst, Rodney Forrest to Rail Corporation Manager of Finance, Peter Crimp were released as part of a Parliamentary Standing Order 52 in October 2011 indicating that the North West Rail Link would have to be subsidised by the state government by about $80 per passenger based on predictions of population and passenger volumes in 2021[81][82][83]. Across the CityRail network this equates to about $30 per passenger in 2021, compared to $10 per passenger in 2010. The modelling by NSW Treasury estimates that the North West Rail Link would generate only 9 million new passengers annually, or 2.15% of all CityRail trips. A Hills Shire councillor questioned the size of these estimates based on the projected population increase in the region over the next 8 years[26].

  • PNG MP to stop detention centre

    PNG MP to stop detention centre

    Updated: 15:59, Tuesday August 14, 2012

    A prominent Papua New Guinea politician says he will take legal action to stop Manus Island detention centre being reopened to house asylum seekers.

    National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop, a member of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s coalition government, says a detention centre contradicts PNG’s law and culture.

    ‘You cannot detain people here in PNG – even if they are aliens from outer space – we cannot detain them indefinitely,’ Mr Parkop says.

    ‘That’s the law in PNG. It isn’t in our culture to lock people up without a charge.

    ‘So absolutely I will take legal action. I am a member of this government, but the government must obey the law.’

    Mr Parkop said PNG cannot change its laws to suit a ‘good friend’ like Australia, and worried it would set a legal precedent for detaining people without charge in the 37-year-old democracy.

    ‘I call on both governments to obey the law and … not make a deal for conveniences sake.’

    Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Tuesday asylum seekers could begin arriving in Nauru and PNG within a month, after her government agreed to an expert panel’s recommendation to reopen detention facilities in both nations.

    Ms Gillard said the defence force told her it can construct temporary facilities in both locations while the main centres are being reopened.

    ‘That means that within a month we would hope to see people being processed in Nauru and in PNG,’ she told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

    ‘That’s clearly subject to the work of the recon teams that could go as early as Friday.’

    Mr O’Neill said in a statement on Monday he welcomed the reopening of the centre.

    Updated: 15:59, Tuesday August 14, 2012

    A prominent Papua New Guinea politician says he will take legal action to stop Manus Island detention centre being reopened to house asylum seekers.

    National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop, a member of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s coalition government, says a detention centre contradicts PNG’s law and culture.

    ‘You cannot detain people here in PNG – even if they are aliens from outer space – we cannot detain them indefinitely,’ Mr Parkop says.

    ‘That’s the law in PNG. It isn’t in our culture to lock people up without a charge.

    ‘So absolutely I will take legal action. I am a member of this government, but the government must obey the law.’

    Mr Parkop said PNG cannot change its laws to suit a ‘good friend’ like Australia, and worried it would set a legal precedent for detaining people without charge in the 37-year-old democracy.

    ‘I call on both governments to obey the law and … not make a deal for conveniences sake.’

    Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Tuesday asylum seekers could begin arriving in Nauru and PNG within a month, after her government agreed to an expert panel’s recommendation to reopen detention facilities in both nations.

    Ms Gillard said the defence force told her it can construct temporary facilities in both locations while the main centres are being reopened.

    ‘That means that within a month we would hope to see people being processed in Nauru and in PNG,’ she told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

    ‘That’s clearly subject to the work of the recon teams that could go as early as Friday.’

    Mr O’Neill said in a statement on Monday he welcomed the reopening of the centre.

  • Hansen et al. 2012

    Hansen et al. 2012

    Posted on August 13, 2012 | 13 Comments

    A recent paper in PNAS by Hansen et al. (there’s also a recently releaseddiscussion paper on the topic) has caused quite a stir. The essential result is that extreme heat (beyond the 2-sigma and even 3-sigma level) has become so much more commonplace, that the only plausible explanation is global warming.

    In a sense, this paper doesn’t tell us much we didn’t already know. What it does accomplish is to show in practical terms the observable result of man-made global warming, which is not just to make the average temperature hotter, but to make extreme heat so much more common. What was once 3-sigma heat — which at any given time we would expect to cover less than 1% of the globe — is now at least 10 times more prevalent. There have been 3-sigma events before, it’s true, and because of that we know that such extremes have consequences. When they’re as rare as they should be, life can recover from those consequences. When they’re 10 times more common …

    I have two criticisms of this paper. First, the exposition is not always as clear as it could be — but that’s a matter of style more than substance. Second, it gives the impression that variability of temperature has increased recently. I’m not convinced that’s the case when considering local temperature because part of the increased variability in “standardized” (i.e., scaled by the local standard deviation) temperature anomaly is due to spatial rather than temporal changes — different amounts of overall warming in different locations (i.e., differenttrends) — as I stated here. I admit I haven’t analyzed hemispheric data, nor did I (in the previous post) consider seasonal (principally summertime) temperature specifically.

    But in another sense, temperature variability has increased precisely because of spatial as well as temporal variability. The point of Hansen et al. 2012 is that what used to be rare extreme heat is now much more common. Much. This is made even more true by the fact that some regions have warmed (trend-wise) more than the global or hemispheric average, so they’re even more susceptible to extreme events (“extreme” by the standard prior to 1980).

    Even hot times in earlier years don’t stack up to what we’re seeing today. In their more recent discussion paper, they show standardized anomalies (i.e., anomalies divided by the local standard deviation) for summertime in the northern hemisphere, using a longer baseline period than in the original paper (in response to some critics). Here’s the color legend (units are standard deviations):

    Here’s the map for the very hot summer (in the U.S.) 1936:

    Note the strong heating over much of the American midwest, with a small region even showing 3-sigma (or more) heat (dark brown color). It was hot back then in the USA, but only 1% of the northern hemisphere was in the 3-sigma or more extreme range. Now look at what happened in the summer of 2010:

    Not only is there a region of 3-sigma heat along the east coast of the USA and another along the north coast of South America, there’s a giant area from Russia down through the middle east. Fully 18% of the hemisphere is in the 3-sigma range. That’s not “natural variation.” It’s global warming.

    This is, I believe, an important way to characterize the simple temperature effect of global warming because it puts it in the context of what we’ve seen before, of the conditions on which we have based building our modern civilization. The baseline period for their recent analysis is 1931 to 1980. That’s when we layed out the infrastructure which drives modern high-tech civilization. Those are the conditions from which we derived our expectations. But because of global warming, conditions today exceed expectation much more often than they used to. Much more often than we’re prepared to deal with. Much.

    I did a similar analysis for the lower 48 states of the US only, using summertime-mean data for climate divisions from the National Climate Data Center. I compared the distribution of standardized (i.e., scaled by the local standard deviation) temperature anomalies prior to 1980, to those since 2000 (using 1930-1980 as a baseline period):

    The most important aspect of this comparison isn’t the higher mean value for the most recent temperatures. It’s the fact that extreme high values — above 2-sigma and especially above 3-sigma — are so much more frequent. Much. And that’s the real problem. When a 3-sigma event happens, it’s a problem but we can deal with it and recover from it. When 10 (or more) times as many 3-sigma events happen … we have a problem.

    That means we’re already in trouble. The really bad news is that we’re already in trouble from just the warming we’ve already experienced, but it’s going to get worse because it’s going to get hotter. You think the 2011 Texas-Oklahoma heat wave was bad? You think this year’s corn-belt heat wave was bad? You think the 2010 Russian heat wave was very very bad? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    That’s why Hansen et al. is so important. From a purely scientific perspective it doesn’t really add to our knowledge. But from a human perspective, it lays it on the line. We’ve had bad heat events in the past but now they’re so much more common they’re vastly more difficult to deal with, so stop kidding yourselves, it’s already a bad problem and it’s just gonna get worse.

    All this reveals the utter foolishness of Cliff Mass’s distorted view that global warming has little to do with the extreme heat witnessed in recent years in many places. His argument is that global warming has raised temperature in the U.S. by about 1 degree F, but last year’s Texas-Oklahoma heat wave was 7 to 8 deg.F over large portions of TX and OK, so global warming is only responsible for a small portion of that heat wave.

    Even if his result were correct (which it is not), he utterly misses the point. Rather than sum up the situation the wrong way as he does, Hansen et al. did it right, showing that global warming doesn’t just make heat waves hotter. What’s much much much more important is that it makes heat waves more frequent. Cliff Mass gives the impression that there’s nothing to worry about because our “3-sigma” events — the real killers — will only be one degree hotter, quite ignoring the fact that we’ll get 10 times as many of them.

    This entry was posted in climate change, Global Warming and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

    13 RESPONSES TO HANSEN ET AL. 2012

    1. Daneel Olivaw | August 13, 2012 at 7:46 pm | Reply

      Shouldn’t we compare timespans of similar lengths? Does that have any influence on the frequency of extreme events?

      [Response: The graph shows frequency of occurrence per unit time.]

    2. MMM | August 13, 2012 at 8:01 pm | Reply

      “Second, it gives the impression that variability of temperature has increased recently. ”

      Ah. I had missed your variability post from July 21 (that should teach me not to go on vacation) – I found it very interesting. I encourage you to publicize that result further: I consider myself a climate change professional, yet I had taken the Hansen et al. type graph at face value in terms of showing an increase in variability in addition to the mean, and I think your July 21 post is pretty convincing that this sort of skew would be expected from averaging across a region with differing trends (not that there might not be an increase in variability anyway, only that you have to do a more sophisticated analysis to detect it).

      I’m wondering if your USA48 graph could be looked at in another way: the percentage of the country that is likely to be X standard deviations above the local mean? Eg, it isn’t that in any given location in the US, you’re much more likely to see a 3-sigma event…

      Also, while I no doubt disagree with Cliff Mass’s conclusions, I do wonder: if we originally have 5 days of 3 degrees above normal, and 1 day of 4 degrees above normal in our base case, which is the better way to portray a 1 degree warming: a 5-fold increase in 4 degree events, or a 1 degree increase in what used to be 3 degree events? The former sounds much more disastrous than the latter, even though they describe the same situation… implying that there’s a subtle issue going on here. Perhaps we need to think about how non-linear the damages are: if there is a threshold, or high non-linearity, then the former (five fold increase) is a better way to think about it, whereas if damages are fairly linear with temperature then the latter (just add 1 degree to any historical temperature) gives an impression closer to reality…

      -MMM

      • Rattus Norvegicus | August 14, 2012 at 1:04 am | Reply

        Corn pretty much can’t grow (at least the current strains) if the average daily temp is above 86F. That is a distinct non linearity.

    3. Tom Curtis | August 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Reply

      MMM, there is a definite non-linearity of damages brought about by the fact that homeotherms have an effective upper temperature above which they cannot survive because they cannot maintain their core body temperature because they cannot cool fast enough. As the environmental temperature approaches that temperature, the percentage reduction in cooling ability increases more with each degree C increase in temperature. Treating the upper temperature limit as 40 degrees C, an increase in temperature of 7.5 C will effectively halve the ability of homeotherms to cool themselves, but it will only take an increase of 3.75 C to halve it again, and 1.875 C to halve it a third time. Clearly I have simplified because humidity is a major factor for cooling for most homeotherms, so wet bulb rather than dry bulb temperature should apply, but the principle stands. This applies not only to humans, who in Western societies can at least find air conditioned locations, but to our live stock as well, who effectively cannot, and to homeotherms in the wild as well, who certainly cannot.

      There is an additional non-linearities related to evaporation, and (no doubt) other factors.

      What is more, Cliff Mass’s application of his reasoning is simplistic. He provides no evidence that the mean temperature increase during weather events that introduce heat waves is not greater than the mean annual increase. The mean night time, day time, summer and winter increases all differ from the mean annual increase. Given that, he is not entitled to an assumption of uniform temperature increase in assigning effects to either weather or global warming.

    4. chrisd3 | August 13, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Reply

      the exposition is not always as clear as it could be

      Wow, that’s unusual for an academic paper. 🙂

    5. Aaron Lewis | August 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Reply

      “Much”! ??
      As planers and policy makers plan critical infrastructure, they have to plan for much higher temperatures, and that results in much higher costs. And they have to plan for those temperatures arriving much sooner than expected.

      There goes all the cost savings from not fighting global warming. Everybody underestimated the costs from global warming. Everybody discounted the costs from global warming too much by placing the damages too far in the future.

      Still, if there is a future left to plan for, we are going to need some numbers to use as a basis of planning.

      I suggest that we need an estimate of the total heat stress that infrastructure or people or crops or organizations will be exposed to over a continuous period of 10 days. or 20 days. And it is very non-linear. A day in 100F heat is much worse than a day in 90F heat. Three days in 90F heat is much worse than a day in 90F heat. And, if you are going to be in 100F heat for 10 days, you need to stay hydrated. And if you are building infrastructure in those kinds of places, you need to plan for the heat.

      If your only basis of planning is, “Much heat!”. Then, about the best you can do is a gravel road, and adobe buildings.

    6. Brian Dodge | August 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Reply

      There are also nonlinear responses to high temperatures in plants.http://themidwestcultivator.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Chart-Photosyntesis.jpg.png

    7. Bern | August 13, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Reply

      Thanks for the article, Tamino. I think those maps of 1936 vs 2010 should be the “final nail in the coffin” of the “but, but, 1936!” denier argument. But I’m sure it wont be…
      It’ll be interesting to see what the 2012 map looks like, particularly in the US.

    8. Andy S. | August 13, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Reply

      What about sample size effects in your’s and Hansen’s graphs? For example, Is there a 12 year time period between 1930 and 1980 that would produce a similar bell curve shifted to the warm side like in the 2000 to present data? Could there have been similar periods some other time during the Holocene? How do we know for sure how much we’re cooking the earth? Can statistics answer this without the passing of more years and us waiting around until it’s too late to do anything more than wring our hands?

    9. Michael Sweet | August 14, 2012 at 12:37 am | Reply

      Tamino,

      Another good post. It is informing to see your analysis of this paper. Your clear point that the key conclusion is rapidly increasing extreme events is important. I will be interested to see how the analysis of increasing temperature variability goes in the future.

      Even more frightening is the appearance of 4 and 5 sigma events. In your graph above for the US, the 4 sigma events are obviously greater than 1% (by eyeball) and 5 sigma is greater than zero. In the period of record both of these were zero. We have not even reached 2C yet, which is the current “target” for no harm. What do you think the farmers in Texas think about 2C?

    10. Douglas Ricker (@DHRicker) | August 14, 2012 at 12:38 am |Reply

      Thanks for this analysis of Hansen v. Mass. The only part I’d quibble with is this: “But because of global warming, conditions today exceed expectation much more often than they used to. Much more often than we’re prepared to deal with.”

      If we could somehow keep the warming to current levels, I think we’d adapt to it reasonably well. As Stuart Staniford pointed out on his blog last year (i.e. before this years drought), global food production has kept increasing despite the Russian, Texas, etc droughts.

      But we’re rapidly approaching a point where this will no longer be true, and a lot of it is already “baked into the cake.” Perhaps this will be the year it starts showing up in food production as well. Depressing thought.

      • Alex the Seal | August 14, 2012 at 5:22 am | Reply

        Australian farmers are looking forward to higher prices this year on the back of US farming difficulties. Unfortunately we are likely looking at El Nino conditions – Australian agriculture tends to suffer badly:

        “Huge US corn and soybean losses just forecast by the US Department of Agriculture are helping drive US wheat prices higher.
        Record US corn and soybean prices stemming from drought-ravaged yields and a 12 to 13 per cent drop in forecast production versus last year are driving the sharp wheat rise.”

        http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201208/s3566235.htm

        I’m not sure where you are getting your data from.

    11. adelady | August 14, 2012 at 4:11 am | Reply

      “If we could somehow keep the warming to current levels, I think we’d adapt to it reasonably well.”

      I’m not so sure. All you need to look at is crop failures and successes. The top 5 wheat exporting countries/groups – USA, Australia, Canada, EU, Russian Federation – occasionally have major individual or combined failures. What happens when droughts and/or floods affect 2 or more in the same growing season … in the year following a major failure in just one of them?

      And if we’re talking *major* crop failure, you can be pretty sure that the country/ies in question will also fail in one or more similar crops. World reserves of grains are already pretty low. Considering the crop impacts of just Russia 2010 and USA 2012 of extreme weather, we’re literally dicing with death if we think we can keep doing this without running headlong into the statistical inevitability that this climate regime will, sooner or later, allow multiple failures in one growing year.

    LEAVE A REPLY

    • SUPPORT YOUR GLOBAL CLIMATE BLOG

      You can help support this blog with a donation. Any amount is welcome, just click the button below. Note: it’ll say “Peaseblossom’s Closet” and the donation is for “Mistletoe” — that’s the right place.

    • NEW! DATA ANALYSIS SERVICE

      Got data? Need analysis? My services are available at reasonable rates. Submit a comment to any thread stating your wishes (I’ll keep it confidential). Be sure to include your email address.

    • RECENT COMMENTS

    Alex the Seal on Hansen et al. 2012
    adelady on The Small Picture
    adelady on Hansen et al. 2012
    bananastrings on Sea Ice Poll
    bananastrings on The Small Picture
    Bryan Stairs on Sea Ice Poll
    Horatio Algeranon on The Small Picture
    Rattus Norvegicus on Hansen et al. 2012
    bananastrings on The Small Picture
    Douglas Ricker (@DHR… onHansen et al. 2012
    Michael Sweet on Hansen et al. 2012
    Andy S. on Hansen et al. 2012
    Philippe Chantreau on The Small Picture
    Bern on Hansen et al. 2012
    Brian Dodge on Hansen et al. 2012
    August 2012
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul
    1 2 3 4
    5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    26 27 28 29 30 31

  • Hydroelectric Dams Produce 20 Times more Methane Gas when Water Level is Low

    Hell in Tajikistan: Oil Discoveries a Potential Curse

    Posted: 10 Aug 2012 03:57 PM PDT

    A major oil find by Canada’s Tethys Petroleum in Tajikistan comes at a bad time for the Central Asian country, as the security situation is about to skyrocket out of control in a restive province on the border with Afghanistan.   Last month, Tethys upgraded its oil and gas reserves in Bokhtar to an estimated 8.5 billion barrels of oil and condensate and 114 trillion cubic feet of gas. Indeed, Tethys believes that discovery trumps those in the British North Sea. The company is now obtaining seismic data to pinpoint where they will…

    Read more…

    UAE, Australia Sign Nuclear Fuel Agreement – Still a Few Bumps in the Road

    Posted: 10 Aug 2012 03:55 PM PDT

    First, the good news. On 31 July the United Arab Emirates Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Abdullah signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr to supply the UAE with nuclear fuel for its first nuclear power plant al Baraka, currently under construction. Carr told the media, “The UAE meets all the tests, and the tests are rigorous and extensive and we’re happy to make a big commitment to providing them with energy security. We’re underpinning jobs and investment in Australian uranium mines, and helping…

    Read more…

    Research Shows that Injection Wells may Cause Earthquakes

    Posted: 10 Aug 2012 03:48 PM PDT

    Most earthquakes in the Barnett Shale region of North Texas occur within a few miles of one or more injection wells used to dispose of waste such as hydrofracking fluids, according to new research.“You can’t prove that any one earthquake was caused by an injection well,” says Cliff Frohlich, senior research scientist at the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin. “But it’s obvious that wells are enhancing the probability that earthquakes will occur.”For a study published in Proceedings…

    Read more…

    Government Incentives Lead to a Wind Energy Boom in Turkey

    Posted: 10 Aug 2012 03:44 PM PDT

    Turkish Boom in Wind Power InvestmentsWind power boasts the second highest share of renewable energy production in Turkey, and its prospects look brighter each day. According to 2010 data from the Turkish power-generation corporation, electricity generated from renewable resources had a 19.7% share of total power: 18.5% hydroelectric energy, 0.8% wind power and 0.4% for other renewables such as landfill gases, biogas, and biomass. By comparison, 48.6% of total energy was supplied by natural gas and 31.7% by petroleum and coal. Yet by end of 2011…

    Read more…

    Hydroelectric Dams Produce 20 Times more Methane Gas when Water Level is Low

    Posted: 10 Aug 2012 03:42 PM PDT

    Typically, at moderate sizes, power generated by dams and reservoirs is considered “green.” However, a new study from Washington State University has found that during times of drawdown — a period in which the water level behind a dam is rapidly lowered — temperate reservoirs can produce up 20 times more methane than normal.Methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere over 100-year period, and is a hundred times more potent over 20 years. It is produced naturally in reservoirs…

    Read more…