Author: Neville

Burke gets tough to stop new reef plans

Date February 1, 2013
Read later

Ben Cubby

Environment Editor

View more articles from Ben Cubby

Follow Ben on TwitterEmail Ben

inShare.
Pin It
submit to reddit
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions

.

One-of-a-kind … the Great Barrier Reef is considered the world’s largest coral reef system. Photo: Catlin Seaview Survey

The federal government has promised to stop any coal port or shipping developments that would cause ”unacceptable” damage to the Great Barrier Reef in an effort to convince the United Nations to preserve the reef’s world heritage status.

All criticisms of the reef’s management made last year by UNESCO have been met, according to a government report to be released on Friday.

From time to time, the Queensland Premier gets a rush of blood to the head, and starts demanding that we start giving approvals without the proper processes.

The Environment Minister, Tony Burke, said he ”would not give an inch” to Queensland’s government over further port developments in sensitive areas such as Gladstone unless they met the criteria of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Tony Burke “would not give an inch” to further port developments. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

He was confident the strict application of the act, together with changes in future coal production and shipping estimates, would keep the reef’s status as a world heritage site intact.

Advertisement

”UNESCO wanted the government to establish a benchmark that they wanted us to meet, and it has been met. The development approvals that have happened [since the report] have been consistent with that.”

UNESCO rebuked the federal government last year, saying the rapid increase in coastal and port developments near the reef was of ”significant concern”, and that it might have no choice but to revise its conservation status to a world heritage area ”in danger”. It asked the government not to permit any new port developments beyond existing industrial sites.

”The World Heritage Committee can be assured that no new port developments or associated port infrastructure have been approved outside existing long-established major port areas since the committee made this recommendation,” the government’s report said.

”A project will only be approved by the Australian government environment minister if the residual impacts on protected matters, including ‘outstanding universal value’, are determined to be not unacceptable.”

It pointed out that estimates of the rise in shipping near or across the reef, driven by Queensland’s coal and gas boom, had been revised downwards by the Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics since UNESCO made its critical assessment.

”Many of those early projections have since been scaled down or withdrawn,” the report said. ”Current estimates indicate the increase [in shipping] is likely to be between 52 and 74 per cent, although this is also considered to be at the upper end of the likely range.”

After UNESCO’s report, the Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, responded: ”We are in the coal business.”

But Mr Burke said federal environment regulations would be applied wherever possible to meet the requirements of the world heritage committee.

”From time to time, the Queensland Premier gets a rush of blood to the head, and starts demanding that we start giving approvals without the proper processes,” he said.

”I can assure people we won’t be giving an inch in terms of protecting the reef.”

Environment groups, including the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said they still believed Australia would fail to protect the reef.

”The sheer size and speed of port and associated development along the reef coast is unprecedented,” the conservation society’s campaign director, Felicity Wishart, said.

Follow the National Times on Twitter

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/burke-gets-tough-to-stop-new-reef-plans-20130131-2dnp9.html#ixzz2JbAxlZOF

Call for Gillard to explain ‘curious’ election timing

ABCUpdated February 1, 2013, 9:50 am

tweet4

Email
Print

Shadow attorney-general George Brandis says the Prime Minister must rule out any link between Craig Thomson’s arrest and her early calling of the federal election.

relating to allegations he misused Health Services Union money when he was the union’s national secretary.

This morning his lawyer accused Corrective Services of changing their story on whether Thomson was strip-searched after his arrest, .”

Senator Brandis told Lateline that Julia Gillard must explain whether the reason she called the election so far ahead of time was because she knew of Mr Thomson’s impending arrest.

“It is a curious fact that this very, very surprising – indeed, historically unprecedented – announcement of an election seven-and-a-half months into the distance, took place literally 24 hours before Mr Thomson was arrested and charged,” he said.

“Now, I’m not saying that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between those two things, but it is curious.

“The Prime Minister needs to make it clear that there was no such cause-and-effect relationship.”

Ms Gillard took the nation by surprise on Wednesday when she announced the federal election would take place on September 14.

Just a day later, NSW police executed an arrest warrant at the request of Victorian police as part of their investigation into the Health Services Union (HSU).

Mr Thomson, who sits as an independent for the federal seat of Dobell, was arrested and appeared in Wyong Local Court yesterday afternoon, where he was granted bail to appear in the Melbourne Magistrates Court next week.

Questioned about the timing of the election announcement yesterday, Ms Gillard responded “Of course not” when asked if she had any prior knowledge of Thomson’s arrest.

One of the conditions of bail is he must not contact any person he is alleged to have engaged for sexual services.

He said he would “vigorously defend” the charges against him.

“As I have said from the start, I have done no wrongdoing and that’s what will be found in these matters,” he said.

The Opposition is continuing to use the Thomson scandal to question the Ms Gillard’s political judgement.

Senator Brandis told Lateline that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott did not go too far in saying that Ms Gillard had run a “protection racket” for Mr Thomson.

“The fact is that the Prime Minister, exhibiting her characteristically poor judgment – the same poor judgment we saw when she picked Peter Slipper to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives – was for months, and indeed years, Craig Thomson’s principal political defender and protector,” he said.

Meanwhile, the civil case against Mr Thomson is due to begin in the Federal Court today.

The case is in regards to Fair Work Australia’s allegations that Mr Thomson used union money to pay for prostitutes and support his election campaign.
Mr Thomson is not expected to be in court and his lawyers believe his arrest over fraud allegations yesterday will see the civil case postponed.

Australian Medical Association
. . .

.

Media

Publications

Policy

Membership

Resources

Contact

..

Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on youtubeShare on rss
.. . .

Australia ill prepared for health impacts of extreme weather events

30/01/2013

The nation is poorly prepared to cope with health problems arising from extreme weather events, the AMA has warned.

In a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications, which is examining trends in, and preparedness for, extreme weather events, the AMA highlights fundamental gaps in Australia’s ability to minimise and react to effects on health of extreme weather events, including:
•the lack of a nationally coordinated approach to managing the health effects of extreme weather events and climate change, particularly the absence of consistent framework that links health databases with real-time monitoring and assessment of weather, climate and geographic data;
•limited understanding of the scope and scale of health implications;
•little investment in preventive measures and long-term planning;
•a lack of supporting regulations, legislation, standards and codes; and
•a failure to sufficiently engage health professionals and the health sector in planning and preparation for extreme weather events.

AMA Vice President, Professor Geoffrey Dobb, said today that the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events means it is vital to address major shortcomings in current arrangements.

“Extreme weather events in Australia are increasing in both severity and frequency.

“The health effects of these events are profound. They not only affect the health of individuals, but place a severe strain on health services.

“As we have seen recently, the health impacts of extreme weather events can reduce access to essential health services precisely when they are needed the most.

“In 2007, COAG identified the need for a national strategy specifically designed to drive and coordinate actions to reduce the health effects of climate change and extreme weather.

“However, no such strategy has been developed or implemented.

“Australia needs to develop a national coordinated strategy to ensure health services can be rapidly mobilised and effectively targeted during extreme weather events, and a fundamental gap in policy leadership needs to be overcome if we are to be better prepared for the health impacts of future weather events.”

The AMA submission is at https://ama.com.au/position-statement/submission-inquiry-recent-trends-and-preparedness-extreme-weather-events

——————————————————————————–

30 January 2013

CONTACT: Kirsty Waterford 02 6270 5464 / 0427 209 753

New Research Shows Complexity of Global Warming

Jan. 30, 2013 — Global warming from greenhouse gases affects rainfall patterns in the world differently than that from solar heating, according to a study by an international team of scientists in the January 31 issue of Nature. Using computer model simulations, the scientists, led by Jian Liu (Chinese Academy of Sciences) and Bin Wang (International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa), showed that global rainfall has increased less over the present-day warming period than during the Medieval Warm Period, even though temperatures are higher today than they were then.

——————————————————————————–

Share This:

6

Related Ads:
•Climate Change
•Global Warming
•Weather
•Atmosphere

See Also:

Earth & Climate
•Global Warming
•Environmental Issues
•Climate
•Weather
•Geography
•Atmosphere

Reference
•Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
•Climate model
•Scientific opinion on climate change
•Geologic temperature record

The team examined global precipitation changes over the last millennium and future projection to the end of 21st century, comparing natural changes from solar heating and volcanism with changes from human-made greenhouse gas emissions. Using an atmosphere-ocean coupled climate model that simulates realistically both past and present-day climate conditions, the scientists found that for every degree rise in global temperature, the global rainfall rate since the Industrial Revolution has increased less by about 40% than during past warming phases of Earth.

Why does warming from solar heating and from greenhouse gases have such different effects on global precipitation?

“Our climate model simulations show that this difference results from different sea surface temperature patterns. When warming is due to increased greenhouse gases, the gradient of sea surface temperature (SST) across the tropical Pacific weakens, but when it is due to increased solar radiation, the gradient increases. For the same average global surface temperature increase, the weaker SST gradient produces less rainfall, especially over tropical land,” says co-author Bin Wang, professor of meteorology.

But why does warming from greenhouse gases and from solar heating affect the tropical Pacific SST gradient differently?

“Adding long-wave absorbers, that is heat-trapping greenhouse gases, to the atmosphere decreases the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more stable,” explains lead-author Jian Liu. “The increased atmospheric stability weakens the trade winds, resulting in stronger warming in the eastern than the western Pacific, thus reducing the usual SST gradient — a situation similar to El Niño.”

Solar radiation, on the other hand, heats Earth’s surface, increasing the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere without weakening the trade winds. The result is that heating warms the western Pacific, while the eastern Pacific remains cool from the usual ocean upwelling.

“While during past global warming from solar heating the steeper tropical east-west SST pattern has won out, we suggest that with future warming from greenhouse gases, the weaker gradient and smaller increase in yearly rainfall rate will win out,” concludes Wang.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Australia’s sea-level risk assessment out of date as US authorities say possible 2-metre rise by 2100

Posted: 30 Jan 2013 09:04 PM PST
by David Spratt

In assessing risks, it’s pretty basic that you assess the full range of possible future events, and the costs and benefits associated with each outcome. The more extreme outcomes at the edges of the range of possibilities may be considered less likely, but are often associated with very high costs and – in the case of climate change – catastrophic outcomes.
On rising sea levels and coastal inundation due to global warming, that’s precisely what the Australian government is NOT doing. While the science has for years projected sea-level rises in the range of 0.8 to 2 metres by 2100, the Australian government plods along spending tens of millions of dollars on consultants and adaptation research on the assumption that the rise will not exceed 1.1. metres.
This madness is the subject of a submission authored by LIVE and myself to the current Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications Inquiry into Recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events (It is #10 here).
The submission explains how the Australian government —having recognised that 2 metres was about the upper limit for sea-level risk assessments — then engaged in verbal gymnastics, flipping from “worse case scenarios” to “mid-range” to “plausible range of sea-level rise values” without a coherent explanation.
So Climate Minister Wong told ABC “Insiders” on 15 November 2009 that:

1.1-metre ….is about the upper end of the risk. (Wong 2009)

And in June 2011 Climate Change Minister Combet told ABC News that:

The sea level rise of up to 1.1 metre…. is at the high end of the scenarios.

Trouble isn’t, neither statement was true.
And whilst Australia’s “high scenario” stands at just 1.1 metres, others including the United States’ government and the European Union are taking a different approach in recognising that more extreme events are possible, and need to be assessed.
A new report published last month by the US Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notes that:

Scientists have very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) and no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.

The report says that “identifying global mean SLR estimates is a critical step in assessing coastal impacts and vulnerabilities” and recommends four scenarios:

The lowest sea level change scenario (8 inch rise) is based on historic rates of observed sea level change. This scenario should be considered where there is a high tolerance for risk (e.g. projects with a short lifespan or flexibility to adapt within the near-term)
The intermediate-low scenario (1.6 feet) is based on projected ocean warming
The intermediate-high scenario (3.9 feet) is based on projected ocean warming and recent ice sheet loss
The highest sea level change scenario (6.6 foot rise) [2 metres] reflects ocean warming and the maximum plausible contribution of ice sheet loss and glacial melting. This highest scenario should be considered in situations where there is little tolerance for risk. (emphasis added)

US Department of Commerce/NOAA 2012 sea level rise scenarios
And since submitting to the Senate inquiry, another gem has come across my desk, this time from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In November 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released updated guidance to Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-211 (2009) “Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs.” The guidance series has a two-year lifespan, leading to the new 2011 release. This 2011 update includes:

…additional references and discussion reflecting recent advances and understanding of sea-level change since 2008-2009, including a statement that a credible upper bound for 21st century sea-level rise would not exceed 2 meters. This statement is based upon recent peer-reviewed articles by several authors using different methods but arriving at similar conclusions.

And where is Australia? Hoping that the worst-case scenarios just won’t happen? That is certainly something this nation does not do when it comes to bushfire preparation.

Our propositions to the Senate Inquiry are:

Prudent risk management demands an analysis of the full range of possible future events, and the costs and benefits associated with each outcome.
The more extreme outcomes at the edges of the range of possibilities may be considered less likely, but are often associated with very high costs and – in the case of climate change – catastrophic outcomes.
Our coasts and coastal assets are vulnerable to storm surges. As a result of rising sea levels caused by global warming, the risk of severe flooding and storm damage to property will increase, beaches and bluffs will suffer increased erosion, low-lying areas will be inundated, with potential for saltwater to infiltrate into surface waters and aquifers, and sewage and septic systems, transportation and water treatment infrastructure will be at risk from flooding and erosion.
There is a broad body of scientific work which estimates that sea-level could rise this century by as much as 2 metres. But the government’s work is based on three scenarios, none of which exceed 1.1 metres.
Small increases in the sea level can have devastating impact when combined with storm surges and high tides. The difference between a 1-metre and a 2-metre sea-level rise on such events will be in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for Australia, but we cannot quantify the cost because the assessment work has not been done.
The Australian Government has ignored basic, sound risk management practices in assessing future sea-level rises and the impacts of extreme storm surge events by discounting the more recent, upper-range, scientific projections.
The Australian people have a right to know how extreme coastal impacts could affect their lives, so that they can make fully-informed choices.

Let’s hope that the Inquiry holds public hearings and these issues get a proper airing.

RELATED POSTS

Arctic melt demands another look at Australia’s climate policy
Pretending more severe sea level rise scenarios don’t exist is a poor way to manage risk

Parabolic trough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For parabolic trough reflectors used for solar cooking, see Solar cooker.

This article’s lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (November 2012)

Array of parabolic troughs.

A parabolic trough is shaped as a parabola in the x-y plane, but is linear in the z direction

A diagram of a parabolic trough solar farm (top), and an end view of how a parabolic collector focuses sunlight onto its focal point.
A parabolic trough is a type of solar thermal collector that is straight in one dimension and curved as a parabola in the other two, lined with a polished metal mirror. A tube, frequently a Dewar tube, runs the length of the trough at its focal line. The mirror is oriented so that sunlight which it reflects is concentrated on the tube, which contains a fluid which is heated to a high temperature by the energy of the sunlight. The hot fluid is piped to equipment, such a heat engine, which uses its energy for some purpose, such as generating electricity.

This solar energy collector is the most common and best known type of parabolic trough. The paragraphs below therefore concentrate on this type.

Contents
[hide] 1 Efficiency
2 Design
3 Variations 3.1 Enclosed trough

4 Usage by commercial plants
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links

[edit] Efficiency

The trough is usually aligned on a north-south axis, and rotated to track the sun as it moves across the sky each day. Alternatively, the trough can be aligned on an east-west axis; this reduces the overall efficiency of the collector due to cosine loss but only requires the trough to be aligned with the change in seasons, avoiding the need for tracking motors. This tracking method works correctly at the spring and fall equinoxes with errors in the focusing of the light at other times during the year (the magnitude of this error varies throughout the day, taking a minimum value at solar noon). There is also an error introduced due to the daily motion of the sun across the sky, this error also reaches a minimum at solar noon. Due to these sources of error, seasonally adjusted parabolic troughs are generally designed with a lower solar concentration ratio.

Parabolic trough concentrators have a simple geometry, but their concentration is about 1/3 of the theoretical maximum for the same acceptance angle, that is, for the same overall tolerances for the system. Approaching the theoretical maximum may be achieved by using more elaborate concentrators based on primary-secondary designs using nonimaging optics.[1][2]

[edit] Design

Heat transfer fluid (usually oil) runs through the tube to absorb the concentrated sunlight. This increases the temperature of the fluid to some 400°C.[3] The heat transfer fluid is then used to heat steam in a standard turbine generator. The process is economical and, for heating the pipe, thermal efficiency ranges from 60-80%. The overall efficiency from collector to grid, i.e. (Electrical Output Power)/(Total Impinging Solar Power) is about 15%, similar to PV (Photovoltaic Cells) but less than Stirling dish concentrators.[4]

Most mirrors used are parabolic and single-piece. In addition, V-type parabolic troughs exist which are made from 2 mirrors and placed at an angle towards each other.[5]

In 2009, scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and SkyFuel teamed to develop large curved sheets of metal that have the potential to be 30% less expensive than today’s best collectors of concentrated solar power by replacing glass-based models with a silver polymer sheet that has the same performance as the heavy glass mirrors, but at a much lower cost and much lower weight. It also is much easier to deploy and install. The glossy film uses several layers of polymers, with an inner layer of pure silver.[6]

As this renewable source of energy is inconsistent by nature, methods for energy storage have been studied, for instance the single-tank (thermocline) storage technology for large-scale solar thermal power plants. The thermocline tank approach uses a mixture of silica sand and quartzite rock to displace a significant portion of the volume in the tank. Then it is filled with the heat transfer fluid, typically a molten nitrate salt.

[edit] Variations

[edit] Enclosed trough

Enclosed trough systems are used to produce process heat. The design encapsulates the solar thermal system within a greenhouse-like glasshouse. The glasshouse creates a protected environment to withstand the elements that can negatively impact reliability and efficiency of the solar thermal system.[7] Lightweight curved solar-reflecting mirrors are suspended from the ceiling of the glasshouse by wires. A single-axis tracking system positions the mirrors to retrieve the optimal amount of sunlight. The mirrors concentrate the sunlight and focus it on a network of stationary steel pipes, also suspended from the glasshouse structure.[8] Water is carried throughout the length of the pipe, which is boiled to generate steam when intense sun radiation is applied. Sheltering the mirrors from the wind allows them to achieve higher temperature rates and prevents dust from building up on the mirrors.[7]

[edit] Usage by commercial plants

Current commercial plants utilizing parabolic troughs are hybrids; fossil fuels are used during night hours, but the amount of fossil fuel used is limited to a maximum 27% of electricity production, allowing the plant to qualify as a renewable energy source. Because they are hybrids and include cooling stations, condensers, accumulators and other things besides the actual solar collectors, the power generated per square meter of area varies enormously.

The largest operational solar power system at present is one of the SEGS plants and is located at Kramer Junction in California, USA, with five fields of 33 MW generation capacity each.[9]

The 64 MW Nevada Solar One also uses this technology. In the new Spanish plant, Andasol 1 solar power station, the ‘Eurotrough’-collector is used. This plant went online in November 2008[10] and has a nominal output of 49.9 MW.

[edit] See also
Parabola
Parabolic reflector
Solar cooker

[edit] References

1.^ Julio Chaves, Introduction to Nonimaging Optics, CRC Press, 2008 ISBN 978-1-4200-5429-3
2.^ Roland Winston et al.,, Nonimaging Optics, Academic Press, 2004 ISBN 978-0-12-759751-5
3.^ Absorber tube temperature
4.^ Patel99 Ch.9
5.^ V-type parabolic troughs
6.^ “Award-Winning Solar Reflectors Will Cut Production Costs”. www.energyboom.com. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
7.^ a b Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd, “Energy & Resources Predictions 2012”, 2 November 2011
8.^ Helman, Christopher, “Oil from the sun”, “Forbes”, April 25, 2011
9.^ “Kramer Junction SEGS III, IV, V, VI,VII.”. Solel.
10.^ “The Construction of the Andasol Power Plants”. Solar Millennium AG.