Problem – Communication Affective not Effective

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Did they say that! A common response to what we hear around us. Then on a lifestyle site the problem of miscommunication helps explain why we react and why we might not understand the intended meaning: Michel De Montaigne, one of the most influential writers of the French Renaissance once said, “The greater parts of the world’s troubles are due to questions of grammar.”

More and more we are hearing the term gaffe used. The Prime Minister is often quoted as made a gaffe. How we react to being expected to know everything and know we know so little can be embarrassing. Think of this scenario, a stranger walks up to you asks for your opinion and you immediately try to read the situation before you respond. You notice an odd inflection here and one wrong preposition there, and you cannot find it in yourself to respond appropriately. You are stuck for the right words to respond and might even say something you later regret.

Than again, grammatical bloopers are not uncommon and even the most scrupulous writer will tell you it can happen. After all, with an infinite array of nouns, prepositions, infinitives, gerunds, antonyms, synonyms, homonyms and more, one is sure to ‘stuff up’ at times.  But, why is it more likely or very likely people will be confused in the use of ‘effective’ and ‘affective’? Because sometimes it is a tough decision making out the meaning and usage of these similar sounding yet unlike words – ‘effective’ and ‘affective’.

Look at the difference:

The etymology (meaning useful for determining whether a modern English word is descended from Old English) of these commonplace words empowers you to estimate the difference. The word ‘effective’ is derived from the word ‘effect’, which is used both as a noun and as a verb, while the word ‘affective’ draws its inspiration from the verb ‘affect’. Therefore, the nuance and usage of both ‘effect’ and ‘affect ‘will leave you with a better understanding of ‘effective’ and ‘affective’.

A dictionary might define ‘effect’ as “A phenomenon that follows and is caused by some earlier phenomenon”. Simplified, ‘effect’ is defined as the ending or result of a consequence. When used as a noun, ‘effect’ signifies the change caused by something. For example, in the sentence “The drought had a major effect on the world economy”, a change is followed by a phenomenon or an event. When used as a verb, ‘effective’ usually means producing or capable of producing desired result. For instance, “The new mosquito repellent proved to be very effective against dengue.” This sentence clearly shows the ability of the repellent to produce desired result and is hence effective.

‘Affective’ derives its origin from the word ‘affect’, which means “to have an effect upon”. Usually used as a verb, it often refers to an impact imposed by a person or thing. For example, “The advice of the Governor was affective to change their ways”. The sentence stresses the governor can influence the audience. Therefore, the Governor is an affective person.

Examples:

Effective –

“Effective communication in the workplace is a must for career success”.

“His advice was very effective to our upcoming business proposal?”

“Prolonged research enabled him to find effective treatment for the disease”.

“The pain killer was not so effective against my knee pain!”

Affective –

“The politician was affective enough to win the voter’s confidence”.

“The Treasurer’s speech was so affective that he couldn’t help thinking about it since!”

“The budget speech was affective”.

Just maybe the inability of governments (It was a problem for Labour as it is with the Liberals) to sell important messages could be a simple as the greater parts of their troubles are due to questions of the use of grammar. Did they really say that!

Mendacity – a policy choice, not the economy

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

Mendacity is an interesting word. “Are you aware, my lord, that mendacity is an organized body, a kind of association of those who have nothing against those who have everything; an association in …” www.thefreedictionary.com .

So what is the agenda for our government practicing mendacity, or at least willingly portraying itself as such? Take for instance being told we are part of a budget emergency, and the sky if falling. Attempting to instil fear into the population. Then outside bodies tell us, in financial terms Australia is reported to be one of only 6 countries in the world with an AAA reporting agency rating. The rating is enduring from the previous Government. What parallels can we make with other countries? Are the same issues facing them and how do or did they handle the financial pressures verses social responsibility?

In wanting to determine our story we only had to look across the ditch – the ditch is a colloquial term used by New Zealand to describe the body of water separating Australia and New Zealand. The recent federal budgets of the two countries draws a line on the difference in government style and puts forward that very similar conditions underline what is facing each country. Yet, the fiscal responses are different for each. It gets even more interesting when you consider the two governments’ are regarded as conservative – it gets truly bazaar.

What is different about New Zealand? Maybe it is all covered in the story “New Zealand forecasts 2014-15 surplus in budget that bears striking difference to Australia’s”. By New Zealand correspondent Dominique Schwartz :

In Australia we have been asked to go through pain. Whereas in New Zealand has been “served up one of the rarest of economic dishes: a forecast budget surplus of $NZ372 million ($340 million) in 2014-15, after a $NZ2.4 billion ($2.2 billion) deficit this financial year. Also on the menu were election year sweeteners including extended parental leave, and free doctor’s visits and prescriptions for children up to 13 years old.

By contrast, Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey delivered a hard-to-swallow $50 billion deficit accompanied by a collection of bitter pills, among them, co-payments for GP visits and cuts to welfare, family benefits and the public service.”

So as to balance the viewpoints, it is worth taking note of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) New Zealand partner and corporate tax leader Geof Nightingale. From the Schwartz story it was said:

“I don’t think it’s a tale of two different economies, I think it’s a tale of two different policy choices,”

“The fundamentals of each country are quite similar. Australia’s forecasting economic growth of 2.5 to 3 per cent. New Zealand is much the same.

“Australia is forecasting to get unemployment down to about 4 per cent, New Zealand’s much the same.

“Australian politicians have ridden the mineral boom and failed to address the country’s deficits. What’s happened is corporate tax revenue has fallen off but structural spending has increased and so the deficit got wider”

Noting what the New Zealand prime minister John Key says: “His government has kept spending at about the same levels for five or six years as the country claws its way back from the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes.

We’ll be racking up $NZ7.5 billion worth of surpluses in the next three or four years; Australia will have amassed about $100 billion in debt.”

Mr Key continued that “the Australian economy is still reasonably robust and is not in crisis, but he warns the economy could face a crisis of confidence.”

Co2Land Org takes particular note of the issue being described as of a crisis of confidence.

Two important indicators are showing a genuine movement away from Australian:

A growing number of New Zealanders living in Australia are choosing to return to the greener pastures of home, and fewer are crossing the Tasman in the first place. The drift over the ditch has fallen from around 3,000 New Zealanders moving to Australia a few years ago to less than 350 now.

Mr Key says: “So what people are responding to is that they see a strong growing economy in New Zealand.”

According to Johnny Weiss, the founder of the Trans-Tasman Business Circle, reported Business is also making the move:

“We’ve seen quite a bit of relocation of Australian business to New Zealand.

As New Zealand maintains a competitive edge [regarding] pricing, costing and scalability it will be a very attractive place.

Business confidence is much stronger here than in Australia, so companies that want to move quickly find in New Zealand very good talent and quick decision making.”

Another difference is the Key government has not lifted the retirement age, nor are you subject to a means test your pension.

Nor does New Zealand budget to pay down net government debt, which is expected to peak at $NZ66 billion ($57 billion) in 2016-17, or 26 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Why do they not worry? Because they understand that: “The net debt gets smaller as a percentage of GDP [only] as the economy grows past it.

Why worry about Australia: Australia is one of New Zealand’s major trading partners, accounting for 40 per cent of all Kiwi exports.

So no matter how much Mr Key enjoys talking up New Zealand’s rockstar economy at the expense of Australia, he knows his nation’s fortunes will rise or fall along with those across the Tasman.

And Mr Key says he sees no storm clouds on the horizon. But we read into this that more confidence in Australia would be helpful for all of us. And, we need to add in New Zealand they raised the GST a few years back without affecting welfare of its citizens. Can we assume the agenda in Australia is to raise the GST to 15%, but they are so addicted to being fear raises they did not know how to be nice!

 

ERF funding – is it a play on words.

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The Government is confident it will stem the march of climate change with its $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund and its Green Army of tree-planting enthusiasts. So confident, in fact, that it has commissioned $10 million for a new icebreaker in Antarctica.

At least one problem is solved – broken ice will be served with drinks. It sort of makes sense does it not?

But, where is the money, it was not mentioned at all in the budget speech. Even more interesting is submissions on the draft legislation for the ERF are due to close 23rd May 2014. So how will it be funded if it is to start 1 July 2014? As kids often say, Daddy it will just wish-t-appear – how mature of them to understand the minds of our pollies!

In her coverage of the Federal budget Annabel Crabb makes another point on health – why strip away the ability to service our health in order to fund health research. A similar parody could be said a tipping point is fast approaching that mankind is under threat for its existence – anthropogenic influences of climate change will outpace the ability to research a medical solution. Doesn’t make sense except give the opportunity for a fiddle! On reflection Annabel said something about twiddle – could that be what she meant?

Perhaps the last word should go to the Prime Minister, speaking on August 22, 2011:

“Nothing could be more calculated to bring our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election, and do the other afterwards.”

Source – Annabel Crabb is the ABC’s chief online political writer – www.abc.net.au .

Co2land org now asks about the $20 billion to be spent on health research, is that a play on words – a weasel? Another worry is as an Australian entity I am at a disadvantage at influencing the wealth of this country, and it is suggested we should register as an offshore entity and get preferential treatment in Australia? It is not a flippant comment: For example, register in Singapore as a $1 company ($500 setup cost), pass their Directorship rule test and there you go! You can sell back your Australian ideas as a new desirable off-shore package and thumb your nose on paying the correct tax. Albeit the UK now says money shifting will be discouraged via London markets. But I guess that only affects the likes of tech suppliers, mining etc. As they tend to use those markets.

What has this got to do with sustainable futures? Nothing. Even the economics make no sense in terms of society – but maybe a small community might do well from it!

Co2Land org has a theory it reflects in the term ‘hubris’. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (9780307346827): Michael Isikoff, David Corn: Books

www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/030734682X.

The theory is we are being spun the same text book sell on something of an ideal as opposed to a solution. It is even something tried and failed in other political arenas of the world. As in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland – Alice in wonderland grew a mile high after eating one mushroom. She was then subject to rule 42 which says that anyone taller than a mile must leave the court immediately. That thought line then mandates that if you think it is a joke you will be subject to rule 13. And, do not dare to ask what is rule 13. If you paraphrase this you just might understand Joe the Treasurer is a Lewis Carroll fan.

Maybe – yes, we are a fan of the real Malcolm Turnbull. He might just turn bull into hope. For those that did not know, he was a former Environment Minister in the Howard Government and is credited with strongly supporting sustainable solutions.

 

White Paper to Draft Legislation – ERF

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

In case you have not heard: The Clean Energy Regulator survives – it was an error the government has corrected on 7 May 2014. What was intended was to say the Clean Energy Fund is gone. Thank you Greg Hunt for your courage in having that clarified.

It is also hoped you heard late Friday 9th May 2014 the Federal Government released its exposure draft legislation for the Emissions Reduction Fund. They want you to be quick in responding -Two weeks have been given for the review, with submissions due EST 12 noon, Friday 23 May 2014.

The key matter is the draft legislation rebadges the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act. And:

  • A broader range of activities can create “carbon abatement” and include avoidance activities
  • A broader definition of additionality is given
  • A broadening of the authority of the Clean Energy Regulator
  • Establishing the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee
  • Establishing that a yet to be (re)named CFI audit legislation will carry through the audit and assurance through the existing CFI audit legislation.

Why hoped you heard – well we did not want you going to sleep on us because we are boring!

Those that see opportunity are, for instance:

Currently celebrating their 30th year – Energetics consult and offer fee for service activities, and they say:

  • Immediately assess the abatement opportunities you have to create emission reductions to sell into the ERF
  • Understand your risk profile for future capital investments – has this shifted?
  • Assume you need a shadow carbon price
  • Comment on the draft legislation.

Of course the issue for their advise is for you to work out – www.energetics.com.au.

Those that see tragedy are, for instance:

The Climate Spectator www.businessspectator.com.au say,

“Half-baked outline

The half-baked nature of this scheme is revealed on the very first page of descriptive text within the Explanatory Memorandum, where it states:

The Emissions Reduction Fund … will allow businesses, local governments, community organisations and individuals to undertake approved emissions reduction projects and to seek funding from the government for those projects through a reverse auction or other purchasing process.

Government ignores its own red tape cutting advice

I was shocked to find no regulatory impact statement accompanying the ERF legislation, comparing this scheme against alternatives and why it represented a superior cost-benefit case.

Amidst a bonfire of red tape, the government had assured us that they were going to force public servants to see regulation in a ‘new light’ by following a seven-step guide to evaluating new regulations.”

Then finish off saying “I wonder when we’ll see the detailed cost-benefit analysis for the ERF relative to other regulatory alternatives, such as a simple price on carbon emissions.”

For CO2Land org the ‘scary spice’ is the mechanisms can change at any time at the whim of government – regardless of the pain you the business offered or suffered. Again the need for consistent policy is far greater than the words spoken to date. We also tend to agree with one aspect of Energetics spiel – prepare your alternatives. Just in case. And, you don’t have long to comment.

 

 

Is chalk and talk past tense – a victim of ‘dash for cash’.

Posted on Posted in Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

I guess the days of chalk and talk are over, in my view, merely a taste of things to come. From conversations throughout the education sector, there is wide-scale disenchantment and frustration with the system and the apparent breach of promise our politicians speak on school funding will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and bring many to the point of protest – students, teachers and parents.

The question that appears to be wanting in the ‘dash to slash cash’ mindset is changes are needed but what is surviving in the face of technology upgrades is education remains the means of survival and how we learn to fine-tune the way knowledge is delivered.

That said, according to Leanne Mezrani writing for the Project Manager – www.aipm.com.au – in the February/March 2013 edition (but still very relevant) “truly effective teaching relies on the give-and-take between teacher and student. Feedback can be as subtle as a facial expression or tone of voice”.

What is all this based on? Invaluable lessons learnt through industry experience, face to face feedback and deliver using a combination of face to face, online and project based assessment. According to Leanne’s article. So rather than cuts more needs to be spent on knowledge delivery. Especially when we are slipping in world ranking and failing our regional area needs on education.

Is there a revolution or evolution of education delivery though technology? Evolution we think, and if you consider this timeline, also courtesy of Leanne Mezrani:

1911 – first distance education scheme in Australia offered by the University of Queensland and extended to correspondence schools in the 1920’s in NSW and Queensland.

By 1933 – correspondence lessons replace the last itinerant teacher.

In 1935 – All Australian mainland states now have Classroom lessons broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC).

1960 – The school of the Air is established. Lessons are broadcast by radio from the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Cloncurry Queensland.

1975 – The personal computer meant users did not need to rely on mainframe computers for use of education software.

IN the 1990’s – Leaning tools went through a significant upgrade in graphics and sound. CD-ROMs become the preferred method of content delivery.

1993 – Under ownership of Monash University Open Universities Australia was formed as a nation wide means of providing distance education using printed courseware and non-commercial television.

1999 – e-Learning was the term used for internet and other interactive or electronic media sources.

2008 – Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) used as a term to describe an online course offered by a US University. The significance – online classes offered free of charge.

2011 – The Centre of Online Learning Excellence is launched by Open Universities Australia with the purpose of becoming a centre of best practice in online education.

2012 – A total of 20 universities and other education providers across Australia offer 1700 units and 180 qualifications through online courses.

2013 – it is recognized that MOOC was a revolution, but it seem only the highly self-motivated student derive any great benefit from this type of learning. What is now apparent is that is it is an evolution of delivery as the average student is more likely to require motivation and inspiration, and are likely to lose their way in an environment that doesn’t offer scheduled classes or feedback from instructors.

The CO2Land org reads, April 2014 – Australia rates 14th in the place to get a quality education. Rating first is South Korea because of the way they give quality time to students. Since writing this post it has come to our attention Australia is now 15th place according to BBC, 8 May 2014. Also worth noting is that UK is second to South Korea according to BBC.

Does it make you think – dash for cash or offer quality learning? What gives the better future payback?

 

A glimpse of our new utility model

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Change the name Hawaii for Australia in this story. Then you might get a glimpse into our new utility model. Just like in Australia – east or west coast, Hawaii Electric, the US state’s biggest utility, has failed to create a long-term, customer-focused business model. The problem, according to the Hawaii PUC as reported as said last week is “An increasing penetration of utility-scale renewables and distributed generation has ‘broken’ the traditional utility-customer regulatory compact….An overhaul of the traditional cost-of-service utility regulation model is being touted as a possible solution.”

Now we hear you say but Tony and Joe are going to put an end to the renewable industry in Australia by 1 July 2014. Well, according to the Climate Speculator and Tristan Edis the Environment Minister, Greg Hunt says his Cabinet Colleagues are dreaming. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/climate .

We might get cheeky here and refer to CO2Land org’s last posting, 7 May 2014 – Fantasy and Budgets, in particular on after eating a mushroom Alice in Wonderland grew a mile high – we guess it was a magic one! However, no amount of distorted truths can hide the reality and its acceptance here, as in the US state utility regulators, there is a need to take steps to incentivize changes to the utility business model, and utilities should lead on these issues, instead of being dragged along. One furphy that can be dispelled by recent reports cannot attribute renewable to price increases, again quoting, 8 May, 2:22 PM, Explaining electricity markets to dummies by TRISTAN EDIS: “While economic modeling shows that the injection of lots of solar and wind power via the RET will lower wholesale electricity prices, 95% of politicians and 98% of journalists struggle to understand and accept it” (RET refers to Renewable Energy Target). We can only say, sad but true.

Now back to the utility change model, rather than waffle on like a ‘polly’ – aussie slang for politician. You might better get a grip on the case and idea by directly reading –

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaiis-overhaul-of-the-utility-business-model/259923/

We should also add that in Australia, after eight years of study there is no evidence that Wind Energy in South Australia has been causal of wholesale energy price increases in that state or the eastern seaboard to which it is connected. To refer to that story refer to the Climate Speculator again.

Have got to go now – put my waste into the gasifier, produce syngas to start the generator for our power needs, it is cold overcast and foggy outside – need a backup for the solar on the roof. It is just like having a battery without acid. Sorry Alice!

Fantasy and Budgets – a dream time.

Posted on Posted in Hot air, UncategorizedTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Don’t pick that mushroom! Why – then it came back, Alice in wonderland grew a mile high after eating one. She was then subject to rule 42 which says that anyone taller than a mile must leave the court immediately. Just thinking out loud as I remembered our treasurer is a self-professed Lewis Carroll fan. So is the budget buildup all a big joke? Before we go on, rule 42 is a joke – said to actually mean the average number of lines on a page of a paperback book. Can we speculate what is contained in the budget is written down as 42 lines on a page?

Is this an allusion, a trip into the fantastic, extraordinary and, completely obvious. An amazing revelation and remarkable. WOW, it explains so much beyond the books. It even debunks the notion that a computer could provide an answer to the meaning of life. Do we have a Brian in parliament? Its ok it won’t hurt a bit! The pain is to be brought down on budget night.

Ok, Joe does not like science. But, he might still hope that science will come up with answers to the big questions. After all when looking for meaning, science has answered the most questions so far. However, it hasn’t provided answers to the most fundamental questions like why we are here, what is the carbon tax for. But just because it hasn’t yet, doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t when we own it. Having said that, it is possible that questions of meaning is simply of a different sort to question of what matters. We know the physical world is where science is proven so powerful. That being so, it is easy to understand why we are saying something rather than nothing, because just as with mathematics it might make no more sense asking if an equation is happy or if union people in a movement are friends, it can be satisfying just asking the question.

Now we get serious – do you know the mind of god. Is it possible? Let us pre-empt a possible answer: Though we haven’t run up against a class of questions that we couldn’t answer yet, it is a fiendishly difficult area, we have yet to exhaust all possible answers. Why all these questions are this some sort of deep thought madness?

When you have no answer, no meaning, no sense being made of the political universe, and you think you would not be any worse off if you had no government – That’s it the answer, install robots and computers for the job! But who would understand the need for life? Who would accept that life is a gift

To put it another way, life is a gift. It is good. It flourishes in experiences like love. But, such philosophy can no more provide meaning than science can. Why, because life’s giftedness, its goodness and its loveliness are essentially spiritual qualities. They can be assessed by rational enquiry. But they cannot be accessed by the cool calculations of reason. They must be experienced. I know now why Joe said we must experience pain! How else could we see a world in a grain of sand, and capture something of the world needed to be transformed through the beauty and meaning of his ideals.

Oh yeah, OK it was all a bad dream, I though I better write it down before I forgot it. Then someone really scared me and said the answer is rule 13! I must have dozed off again. Oh my god, he does talk like that! Bolt upright and awake now it is so real.

Bidding process – The White – ERF Paper

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Lets talk more about the bidding process, assuming you managed to read the Energy Reduction Fund White Paper released 24 April 2014. We talked about profiling you risk in our post ‘The White – ERF Paper’ on 2 May 2014. It has been attracting worldwide interest. What we don’t know is why it is so. We can only speculate many are expecting a ‘big bang’ or ‘flip flop’ for the policy. Regardless, it is better than doing nothing, so lets assume we can get past the regulatory uncertainty and look at things assuming you business can access the funds, has eligible projects, and has in place safeguard mechanisms.

First question you need to ask is are you strategic or tactical in your approach – or a hybrid. We might suggest hybrid is a good hedge. Why because you can be reactive to changes without being too hung up on risk factors. Also, providing funding could be as easy as the 2014/2015 Federal Budget being approved, without the specialist legislation. Yep, the good ole executive bypass is possible. But that is the government’s risk.

To bid in you need to create a program with a project size that has a prospect of being awarded funding. We note that some say, and repeated by Energetics (a consulting firm that is known to influence policy on Climate), claim 2,000 t CO2 equivalent abatement will get you a jersey. However, remember this is a reverse auction – the lowest price wins! There is no guarantee the best project will win. You could be forgiven for getting a little suspicious over who and what will be rewarded.

That said, the usual suspects for the preparation to be included in the bidding, may actually preclude you too! Namely, the requirement of ‘additionality’ for the projects. Back in 2012, August 14 – CO2Land org looked a little harder at additionality and its association with the word ‘real’ (concluding real was used as a synonym) and found:

  • Specifically ISO 14064-2 (project accounting) does not include ‘Real’ because during development of ISO 14064-2 ‘Real’ was regarded as a programmatic rule/criteria, which is outside the scope of ISO 14064-2.
  • ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program
  • ISO 14064-2 (Clause 5.4) specifies the following requirement in regards to additionality: “The project proponent shall select or establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in the baseline scenario.”
  • Additionality is incorporated into ISO 14064-2 is based on the core principles of ISO standards in general, i.e. that ISO standards not be a barrier to trade (WTO-TBT – anyone following development of ISO 14067 (product) will know this is a major issue). As such, ISO standards must be policy-neutral (extended to include program-neutrality). This is of course very important for market confidence.
  • ISO 14064 deals with the concept of additionality by requiring that the GHG project has resulted in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements in addition to what would have happened in the absence of that project. It does not use the term “additionality”…Thus the project proponent may apply additionality criteria and procedures, or define and use boundaries consistent with relevant legislation, policy, GHG programmes and good practice.”
  • Although the concept/requirement of additionality is within the requirements of ISO 14064-2, the simple reason why the ‘term’ additionality is not present within the requirements of ISO 14064-2 is because of certain sensitivities/perceptions/politics of certain parties involved in the development of the standard –

And, the following references helpful in gaining a more complete understanding:

Oh dear, I wonder if they understand the standard says the concept should be policy- neutral. Why to give confidence to the market, elementary is it not?

But, here comes the good news. If you are aware, adopt a pragmatic approach, and are proactive in that you go low first up and go early you might just get there for your funding. All you got to do is keeping improving on your targets into the future.

What projects might have the better chance of winning a place. Energy Efficiency projects are probably the best suited for the auction process and the pre-qualification needs.

The conclusion: If you have done nothing meaningful before about your energy use. You can now be rewarded? Good policy, hey!

To ponder, Mark Jackson – a professional, asked in the Australasian Renewable Energy and Carbon Professionals Group on LinkedIn: “Is anyone else getting a sense that renewables are not getting a fair airing…budget etc”.

The White – ERF paper

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Have you read the Energy Reduction Fund White Paper released 24 April 2014? No, but I heard Hockey say the Clean Energy Regulator is gone – was the reply. Then another said: Isn’t Hunt the Minister. We replied yeah, but it was an interview for the news and you know what that means. But seriously, what does it mean?

The answer may have come from a company that markets itself as emphasising Climate Change Matters. No, not left wing, not opportunist. Just pragmatic of what is best for you to plan for what is ahead and how to best cope with it. So what can you do to cope? How do you position to be safe?

It is not really that simple. But at least it gives you a chance to prepare. So what is the greater risk? The hubris (excessive ambition, self-confidence) of the government, other parties not supporting the government position for the Direct Action Plan and appearing to support the repeal of the carbon pricing mechanism. Add to that those other parties that will not support either plan and you could say now and into the next senate period the legislation to support the Direct Action Plan will not pass the senate vote.

So the risk is prolonged regulatory uncertainty. But, prudent behaviour and textbook risk management says you must assess risk by anticipating that risk has associated alternatives.

What alternative? The bluster of government says the Energy Reduction Fund will be implemented and the related reverse auction process will commence 1 July 2014. Or, the Clean Energy Act – and the regulator stay put. Or, nothing happens – we blunder on and questions remain in terms of price liabilities. And, of course for business that is not good not good for spruiking ‘open for business’.

What methods would you use to profile your risk? I hear some say a scenario-based approach. But, is it really safe to say the stories lines are plausible because the causal relationships can be demonstrated? In these cases when scenario planning is integrated with a systems thinking approach to scenario development, it is sometimes referred to as dynamic. That is the point here the nature of dynamic is difficult to assess as certainty. Maybe good ‘old fashioned’ (Howard era) sensitivity analysis might be a better way to manage your risk profile. Nonetheless it would be remiss to say you can avoid the need to develop your position and become involved.

Assuming the Emissions Reduction Fund is on track as described in the White Paper: The reverse auction, with $300 million to spend, will begin on 1 July 2014. There are a set number of eligible type projects to participate. Methodologies can include a method to enable facilities reporting under NGERS to bid in the auction.

Baselines have a threshold, but what is different is the inclusion of ‘meaningful’. This differs from ‘generic’ and you need to have an understanding of the likelihood of what happens when or if you exceed the baselines. For example in July 2014 you are in one threshold and after 1 July 2015 above the line.

What is your safeguard position – it is up to you to get involved.

We will give you time to read the paper. But shortly, we might talk more on the bidding process.   If we decide to get involved!

 

Car Batteries – policy or technology the bigger threats

Posted on Posted in Carbon Competition & Consumer, Carbon RiskTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

What is a Gigafactory, costs $5b US and is said will reduce battery pack cost per kWh by 30% by 2017? We kid you not the source of this statistic is talking about TESLA plans for an enormous battery factory in south western USA, and the source is IIT Takeshita dated 2013. The report is linked to the BBC news service 31 March 2013. Whilst all that sounds wonderful, we have a problem. The weakest link for the acceptance of the electric car is the batteries.

It follows that the technology of batteries also mean any plans to set up Gigafactories, such as the TESLA plan to produce lithium-ion batteries for 500,000 cars by 2020 is under threat before it has started. New technologies are being developed that could offer better alternatives to address what experts say is one of the biggest limiting factors for electric vehicles.

“The problem these cars face is that batteries are big and heavy, and as a consequence only a limited number can be installed. The Tesla Model S for example, has a battery pack approximately two metres long by 1.2 metres wide, which is installed flat along the floor of the car. In the top-spec car, that gives a range of about 300 miles (482km) before plugging in and recharging is required. The Nissan Leaf achieves more like 80 miles (128km). On top of that, charging is a much slower process than just filling up with petrol.

How can you make a better battery, then? At its most basic a battery contains a positive and negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte. Many different types of materials can be used as electrodes, the different combinations of materials allowing different amounts of energy to be stored. However battery life and the safety characteristics change as the materials change, so a compromise is always necessary. Lithium-ion batteries are popular, but have been implicated in fires on board planes, and their transport is restricted . Anything more reactive or unstable could be a hazard. Get the combination right, though, and the payoff could be huge.

The latest efforts follow a long line of improvements over the decades. First we had lead-acid batteries, the type that is still commonly used in cars; they are huge. Then, you might remember NiCad (nickel-cadmium) batteries – they were the rechargeable batteries that heralded a new era of portable technology – laptops, phones, and the like, as well as the remote control cars of our childhoods. Then came NiMH (nickel metal hydride) batteries, with about twice the capacity, or energy density. Now modern devices and electric cars are powered by lithium ion, or Li-ion, batteries.” Again the source is BBC News quoting Phil Gott, the senior planning director at HIS Automotive.

Then comes news that there are materials which can double the current energy density available for batteries. The BBC again quoted Daniel Abraham, a material scientist at Argonne National Laboratory, outside Chicago in the US. “We dream up or imagine the types of materials we would like to work with, then we attempt to synthesize the materials in the laboratory.”

Being developed, or maybe more correctly investigated, is batteries known as lithium-air, or lithium-oxygen, or lithium-sulphur batteries. Lithium-oxygen batteries. Talked about, as they are not yet working as planned, but are promising when that is sorted will be an order of magnitude improvement over the current Li-ion batteries.

But although the technology has revolutionary potential, the technical challenges of making a Lithium-air battery work consistently, reliably, and safely – and crucially for extended durations – are large. So far the electrodes have proven unstable.

But we guess we can look forward to a future where we will eventually have better, faster, travel further cars that run on batteries.

The question then becomes: Will the treat to the planned Gigafactory be the technology, will nothing be done after all. Co2Land org supposes if the politics of the day says government will announce yea or nay support after the project is ready to proceed – will it happen at all? It would be an enormous risk for investors. If the government were a more traditional policy announcement then left to be proven would that not be a better business risk? Interesting is it not?