Good design sense
Labels: Opinion
Labels: Biomass, Coal, Gas, Government, Grid, Opinion, RECs, Subsidies
Sunday Canberra Times
Sunday 11/7/2010 Page: 26
I SEE there are more outrageous claims from the Housing Industry Association about mandatory energy ratings. Are we really expected to believe that the move from a five to six-star minimum would add another $100,000 to an average $400,000 to home build? The HIA has opposed Every single energy efficiency initiative around Australia for years. In 1999, it damned Queensland's first 3.5-star minimum, outraged that it would make it virtually mandatory that ceilings were insulated.
We faced an incredible battle finding enlightened builders here in Canberra But now our six-star home heats itself to 22 degrees and more every sunny winter's day, regardless of outside temperatures less than 10 degrees. With the tuning expenses a good home design saves our additional build costs - far lower than HIA's claim - are being repaid in just a handful of years. And our home is far more comfort· able to live in.
Sunday 11/7/2010 Page: 26
I SEE there are more outrageous claims from the Housing Industry Association about mandatory energy ratings. Are we really expected to believe that the move from a five to six-star minimum would add another $100,000 to an average $400,000 to home build? The HIA has opposed Every single energy efficiency initiative around Australia for years. In 1999, it damned Queensland's first 3.5-star minimum, outraged that it would make it virtually mandatory that ceilings were insulated.
We faced an incredible battle finding enlightened builders here in Canberra But now our six-star home heats itself to 22 degrees and more every sunny winter's day, regardless of outside temperatures less than 10 degrees. With the tuning expenses a good home design saves our additional build costs - far lower than HIA's claim - are being repaid in just a handful of years. And our home is far more comfort· able to live in.
_________________________*******************_________________________
Modern makeover for an ancient idea
Hobart Mercury
Tuesday 6/7/2010 Page: 16
EVERY now and again in the big, unfolding saga that is climate change you find yourself heading back to the future, looking at something simple and basic that's been around forever. I had just that experience at a meeting in Hobart last week. The Tasmanian Biochar Workshop put a spotlight on charcoal, that dirty, unmanageable residue of burnt plant and animal matter, and provided its participants with ample evidence that this humble substance has big implications both for reducing atmospheric carbon and growing plants. Simply put,biochar is charcoal created by slow smouldering of organic material which, if dug into the ground, serves as a long-tern carbon store while enriching soils, boosting plant growth and improving water quality. It can hold carbon in soil for many centuries, even thousands of years.
Biochar has an ancient history. Early peoples of the Amazon basin in South America are believed to have made it by smouldering food and agricultural waste, digging it into the region's naturally infertile soil to be further broken down by native earthworms. European settlers called this wonder-soil "terra preta" (Portuguese for "black earth"). In more modern times, the charcoal burner was a familiar part of every settlement in Europe and elsewhere, including Australia, producing fuel for cooking and heating. The application of fine grained char as a soil additive is an old-new idea whose time has come around again.
But the idea of biochar has taken a while to catch on in Tasmania. In 2008 it got caught up in the debate about biomass energy from Tasmanian forestry operations, involving gathering up the woody debris left after logging and burning it in a biomass electricity generator. Some forests activists accused biochar advocates of aiding and abetting native forest clear felling by providing the logging industry with a convenient repository for its waste and a reason to extend its harvesting operations. The debate ignored the fact that the primary focus of biochar production is carbon storage and increased soil fertility. Energy generation from Pyrolysis (the process of producing biochar) and production of biofuel are additional outcomes. The process is carbon negative, which means that it takes more carbon out of the atmosphere than it releases.
The Hobart meeting was organised by international biochar consultant Attilio Pigneri, now living in Tasmania. Held under the auspices of the Australia New Zealand Biochar Researchers Network, it brought together specialists from the University of Tasmania, CSIRO, government and industry. Farmers, soil scientists and biochar business representatives mixed with interested outsiders to hear research outcomes from trials happening in Australia (including Tasmania) and New Zealand. The 60-strong audience heard that biochar production was potentially a highly valuable greenhouse mitigation and growth-enhancing tool for Tasmania whose efficacy depended on environmentally friendly biomass sourcing and production techniques and good knowledge of the best kind of biochar for particular soils.
The meeting was told that feedstock, or raw material, for biochar can come from a big range of sources, including green waste from gardens and orchards, woody weeds such as gorse or willow, food processing waste, sewage sludge and manure (including poultry litter), seaweed, crop stubble, sawdust and wood "from responsible forest management operations." Different sources produced different results, with biochar from animal waste providing better productivity for some crops and woody material benefiting others. Other variables included different soil types and climatic conditions.
The workshop examined key environmental and economic issues in use of biochar in Tasmania, questions about logistics and sustainability, synergies between environmental mitigation and regional development, commercial possibilities and the challenges of bringing biochar activities into a national carbon pricing scheme. To Pigneri, the workshop are significantly raised awareness of current biochar activities, including five University of Tasmania projects, and begun to link researchers and their work across Australia and New Zealand, while providing a base for a permanent industry Association. He and his team will use discussion outcomes from the workshop to guide future planning and inform governments about the technology's potential both in reducing atmospheric carbon and helping Tasmania improve its agricultural productivity.
My father grew up on a farm and was a lifelong vegetable gardening enthusiast, but on that score I'd have been a disappointment to him. Like so many post-war children, I turned away from my rural background towards the city life, becoming part of the "great forgetting" that serve to distance much of modern humanity from the production of food. Now, our roots are calling us back. Besides finding better ways of keeping carbon out of the atmosphere, communities everywhere need to start taking an interest in how they derive sustenance from their lands, and that means getting heads around how to manage soil to grow better plants. For me the great appeal of biochar is its basic simplicity. There's much more work to be done - years of trialling different scenarios to ensure we maximise the game from the effort - but all the signs are that public support for a biochar industry will be a splendid investment in the future.
Tuesday 6/7/2010 Page: 16
EVERY now and again in the big, unfolding saga that is climate change you find yourself heading back to the future, looking at something simple and basic that's been around forever. I had just that experience at a meeting in Hobart last week. The Tasmanian Biochar Workshop put a spotlight on charcoal, that dirty, unmanageable residue of burnt plant and animal matter, and provided its participants with ample evidence that this humble substance has big implications both for reducing atmospheric carbon and growing plants. Simply put,biochar is charcoal created by slow smouldering of organic material which, if dug into the ground, serves as a long-tern carbon store while enriching soils, boosting plant growth and improving water quality. It can hold carbon in soil for many centuries, even thousands of years.Biochar has an ancient history. Early peoples of the Amazon basin in South America are believed to have made it by smouldering food and agricultural waste, digging it into the region's naturally infertile soil to be further broken down by native earthworms. European settlers called this wonder-soil "terra preta" (Portuguese for "black earth"). In more modern times, the charcoal burner was a familiar part of every settlement in Europe and elsewhere, including Australia, producing fuel for cooking and heating. The application of fine grained char as a soil additive is an old-new idea whose time has come around again.
But the idea of biochar has taken a while to catch on in Tasmania. In 2008 it got caught up in the debate about biomass energy from Tasmanian forestry operations, involving gathering up the woody debris left after logging and burning it in a biomass electricity generator. Some forests activists accused biochar advocates of aiding and abetting native forest clear felling by providing the logging industry with a convenient repository for its waste and a reason to extend its harvesting operations. The debate ignored the fact that the primary focus of biochar production is carbon storage and increased soil fertility. Energy generation from Pyrolysis (the process of producing biochar) and production of biofuel are additional outcomes. The process is carbon negative, which means that it takes more carbon out of the atmosphere than it releases.
The Hobart meeting was organised by international biochar consultant Attilio Pigneri, now living in Tasmania. Held under the auspices of the Australia New Zealand Biochar Researchers Network, it brought together specialists from the University of Tasmania, CSIRO, government and industry. Farmers, soil scientists and biochar business representatives mixed with interested outsiders to hear research outcomes from trials happening in Australia (including Tasmania) and New Zealand. The 60-strong audience heard that biochar production was potentially a highly valuable greenhouse mitigation and growth-enhancing tool for Tasmania whose efficacy depended on environmentally friendly biomass sourcing and production techniques and good knowledge of the best kind of biochar for particular soils.
The meeting was told that feedstock, or raw material, for biochar can come from a big range of sources, including green waste from gardens and orchards, woody weeds such as gorse or willow, food processing waste, sewage sludge and manure (including poultry litter), seaweed, crop stubble, sawdust and wood "from responsible forest management operations." Different sources produced different results, with biochar from animal waste providing better productivity for some crops and woody material benefiting others. Other variables included different soil types and climatic conditions.
The workshop examined key environmental and economic issues in use of biochar in Tasmania, questions about logistics and sustainability, synergies between environmental mitigation and regional development, commercial possibilities and the challenges of bringing biochar activities into a national carbon pricing scheme. To Pigneri, the workshop are significantly raised awareness of current biochar activities, including five University of Tasmania projects, and begun to link researchers and their work across Australia and New Zealand, while providing a base for a permanent industry Association. He and his team will use discussion outcomes from the workshop to guide future planning and inform governments about the technology's potential both in reducing atmospheric carbon and helping Tasmania improve its agricultural productivity.
My father grew up on a farm and was a lifelong vegetable gardening enthusiast, but on that score I'd have been a disappointment to him. Like so many post-war children, I turned away from my rural background towards the city life, becoming part of the "great forgetting" that serve to distance much of modern humanity from the production of food. Now, our roots are calling us back. Besides finding better ways of keeping carbon out of the atmosphere, communities everywhere need to start taking an interest in how they derive sustenance from their lands, and that means getting heads around how to manage soil to grow better plants. For me the great appeal of biochar is its basic simplicity. There's much more work to be done - years of trialling different scenarios to ensure we maximise the game from the effort - but all the signs are that public support for a biochar industry will be a splendid investment in the future.
_________________________*******************_________________________
_________________________*******************_________________________
The burning question of renewable energy
Labels: Biomass, Coal, Gas, Government, Grid, Opinion, RECs, SubsidiesAge
Saturday 19/6/2010 Page: 2
DESPERATE battle is being fought on the sidelines of the government debate about the new renewable energy target (RET) legislation and it is set to resume this week. The fight is about burning native forest timber and calling it renewable energy. The dollar figures involved megawatts of power generated - are small, but the environmental ramifications are huge, and emotions are running high. The federal government, urged on by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, continues perversely to support logging our remaining native forests even though a sagging woodchip market puts no value on the resource.
At the moment, under renewable target rules introduced in 2001, wood waste from native forest can only be burnt for renewable electricity if the trees were logged for a higher-value purpose such as sawmilling. But there are negative public perceptions associated with the use of wood waste from forestry, "considered environmentally destructive," according to a biomass resource appraisal for the Clean Energy Council. 'A common misconception is that bioenergy production will become a lucrative primary end use for wood and trigger a land-clearing bonanza.
Unfortunately, the fact that all timber production in Australia is governed by a strict and comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure environmental sustainability is often overlooked. This framework ensures that forest resources cannot be exploited for any form of wood production and wood waste bioenergy targets could be achieved without harvesting a single extra tree from 'business as usual' production." It is true that, up to now, not many renewable energy certificates (REC) have been generated from wood waste. According to the official register, just 1.2 million RECs over the past decade, or 5% of a total 24 million. But with theRET target rising from 2% by 2010, to 20% by 2020, the market opportunity will be significantly bigger.... More=>
Saturday 19/6/2010 Page: 2
DESPERATE battle is being fought on the sidelines of the government debate about the new renewable energy target (RET) legislation and it is set to resume this week. The fight is about burning native forest timber and calling it renewable energy. The dollar figures involved megawatts of power generated - are small, but the environmental ramifications are huge, and emotions are running high. The federal government, urged on by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, continues perversely to support logging our remaining native forests even though a sagging woodchip market puts no value on the resource.At the moment, under renewable target rules introduced in 2001, wood waste from native forest can only be burnt for renewable electricity if the trees were logged for a higher-value purpose such as sawmilling. But there are negative public perceptions associated with the use of wood waste from forestry, "considered environmentally destructive," according to a biomass resource appraisal for the Clean Energy Council. 'A common misconception is that bioenergy production will become a lucrative primary end use for wood and trigger a land-clearing bonanza.
Unfortunately, the fact that all timber production in Australia is governed by a strict and comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure environmental sustainability is often overlooked. This framework ensures that forest resources cannot be exploited for any form of wood production and wood waste bioenergy targets could be achieved without harvesting a single extra tree from 'business as usual' production." It is true that, up to now, not many renewable energy certificates (REC) have been generated from wood waste. According to the official register, just 1.2 million RECs over the past decade, or 5% of a total 24 million. But with theRET target rising from 2% by 2010, to 20% by 2020, the market opportunity will be significantly bigger.... More=>
