let's get on with it: steppin on the gas

Project outline.
To deliver natural gas infrastructure to Warburton* with a nett positive 'return on investment' across sustainability benchmarks.

What's so damn special about this project?
To this point in time, decision-makers and industry experts have applied linear thinking to extending the pipeline from Millgrove to Warburton. (That is, constrained to terms of delivering a brand new, dedicated service comprising single-use infrastructure, the nett benefit doesn't 'justify' the outlay - amounting to a $4.6 million project cost.)

My proposal is that, in building the infrastructure, we develop its capacity to share other services: both at the build stage and into the future - NOT ONLY including the long-awaited optic fibre rollout BUT mains electricity as well.

Pre-requisites.
Fresh thinking from all levels of government, business and other stakeholders.
Co-operation between all levels of government, business and other stakeholders investing in the project (including the possibility of partial ownership by locals).

Potted history.
Three or four years ago, Warburton Highway was plumbed with natural gas mains as far as Millgrove ('last town' before us).
Warburton missed out, mainly because the return on investment of extending the gas pipeline was considered too low by the State Government: we automatically failed the 'National Feasibility Test'.
(I do understand the bean-counters' logic, though it's never been convincing.)

To their credit various parties, including our State representative (Tammy Lobato) and a handful of locals have kept the pot simmering.

When the Federal Government announced the economic-stimulus-led-recovery early last year (including many billions invested in 'community-strengthening' projects) something clicked in my brain.
With the idea still taking shape - but also with an understandable sense of urgency - I emailed our excellent State MP Tammy Lobato on 10 June with my initial suggestion: of rolling out the gas pipe and the optic fibre pipe at the same time, into the same trench - achieving obvious gains in efficiency and splitting costs between different funding streams (in addition to inviting private investment).

Tammy wrote to the relevant State and Federal Ministers on my behalf.
Having waited 11 weeks for a response in the first instance and 19 weeks in the second, I found that my suggestion doesn't rate a single mention, even in passing.
Ironically, I'd been half-expecting a gentle Labor-style Realpolitik refutation of my technical naiveté.

So, a pretty piss-poor outcome you'd have to agree. 'Democracy' inaction [sic].

Turning to the positive, my original idea has evolved still further.
To quote from my followup email to Tammy (13 October):
"In the backwash from the Bushfires Royal Commission* it has also occurred to me that the same infrastructure rollout (gas pipe plus telco pipe installed in a single trench) could potentially include the 'backbone' mains electricity supply in fire-prone districts.
Provided it's technically feasible, this possibility value-adds the proposal immeasurably across the Triple Bottom Line.
Indeed, such a venture could provide a template for future rollouts across Australia and across the world."
*Six months after it started, the blame at the Bushfires Royal Commission has finally slipped focus from the failed warnings of the fire agencies and taken aim even further back in the chain, at the power companies.

In a sad postscript to the Commission's (unfinished) findings, the Toodyay fire in Western Australia this week - which destroyed 40 homes and 3000 Hectares - has been traced to a fallen powerline.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/01/2783710.htm

Encouraging news.
In addition to emphasising his support of the benefits of natural gas, Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson's response to Tammy's letter (see above) refers to legislation - the National Gas Law and the National Gas Rules - enacted by his government on 1 July 2008; their purpose "is to encourage investment in economically viable gas supply infrastructure without the need for an ongoing subsidy by the taxpayer."
In the light of a fresh discussion – a fresh set of parameters – Federal support may well translate into a little 'community-building' seed funding as well - particularly if we can roll out (at the bare minimum) dual services simultaneously.
Point of interest: guess who live in the most marginal Federal electorate in the country? ;)

Yes, I realise that such a combined and synchronised rollout would require unprecedented levels of flexibility and planning (and common sense?) from diverse – historically process-bound – public and private! bureaucracies.
Perhaps it's time we collectively dragged ourselves from our respective comfort zones and into the 21st century.
If governments can't do it alone, I'm sure we can help!

This project can and should transcend insular – dare I say 'obstructionist'? – number-crunching and finally address the S word – Sustainability – in reality.

Feedback welcome, as always: either here (add a Comment) or via email.

Further reading:
The Solutions We Need Now
Highly recommended. ;)

* Victoria, Australia; Latitude: -37.753530634370875 Longitude: 145.68950414657593

more light; less heat

We can never protect ourselves from every single scenario.
You 'didn't need to hear this'? Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong.

History has repeatedly taught us how vulnerable we are at times, yet our instinctive reaction to natural disaster is to target a series of scapegoats to focus the blame - since the Causes are too difficult! - and then invest in an exercise to 'ensure it can never happen again.'
Even when we know, deep in our brains, that it probably will.
Much as it's human nature to seek them, there are no easy answers.
Particularly for those of us who choose to live in Paradise … in the middle of one of the most combustible forests in the world.

Blame 'the greenies' all you like if it floats your leaky McBoat.
In joining this tiresome game, I'll take a slightly more rational course: I blame the increasing ascendancy of 'Wants' over 'Needs'.
We stomp across the planet in our quest for repeated self-gratification then wonder why systems start to break down.
It ain't rocket surgery.
Overconsumption: climate change: erratic weather patterns: stuffall rain: drier bush: reduced opportunities for strategic FRBs (… which are, incidentally, endorsed by your 'greenie' scapegoats).

I expect a lot of really useful outcomes from the Royal Commission.
Hundreds of people should never die in vain.
But we'll never be invulnerable.
That's one piece of useful knowledge reaffirmed during my few hours of 'mortality' last Monday.

Something that seems to have gone 'AWOL' over my lifetime is personal autonomy, yet - unless we are prepared to take full responsibility, in every sense, for the consequences: our destiny - we simply don't deserve 'autonomy'!

Invest a few minutes in this article.
Most of the Comments are also worth reading.
(The intro follows. I'd dispute its claim that It is the other side of the story, since the 'story' is way too complex for a dualistic debate, yet it offers a series of valuable insights that need to be brought to the table.)

Hazard Reduction: The Blame Game
February 18th, 2009

…

The Bushfires in Victoria were a paradigm-shifting event - gripping, terrifying and devastating for dozens of communities and hundreds of families…The news was shocking in its magnitude and the disaster will have enormous consequences for land management and housing development across the nation. Professor Poongschtok is an alias for one of Real Dirt’s most informed readers. He knows what he is talking about so his piece may be long but every word is worth reading. It is the other side of the story.

…

governments just don't get it … case study

In 2007 the Victorian Government decided to build a desalination plant to help 'future-proof' our state against water shortages.
It resolved - in advance! - to build this plant irrespective of community concerns and environmental impacts.
Over the past 12 months or so, Victorian consumers - residential and commercial - have reduced their 'freshwater' consumption by 22%; these savings will only increase.
This new-found thrift is largely negated as …
(1) incalculable volumes of water leak from tired and broken distribution infrastructure which is patched up on an ad hoc basis by a small number of underresourced maintenance crews;
(2) our government continues to advocate the sale of our groundwater to private enterprise (primarily for bottling for the retail market) at discounted rates, bloating their already hefty revenue streams.
Impressive, huh?

Reprocessing sea-water, especially using creaky old fossil-fuel technology, generates massive amounts of greenhouse gases.
Even if the project adopted 'clean' technology to capture and recycle / store this waste (which would add to the cost in dollar terms), it's a fact that vast quantities of fuel will be used up to satisfy the market 'demand' for fresh water.
Even from an 'accounting' perspective, desal water is many times more expensive to acquire, manage and deliver.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how this plan 'future-proofs' our state against greenhouse effects and energy shortages?

The desal plant is currently costed at three billion dollars.
Given governments' long-standing proclivity to under-budget and faff around with our money I'm guessing a bottom line of six billion when it's completed - but let's stick with the estimate.
I can go out and buy a good-quality 5000 litre rainwater tank for A$1300 - retail. (Well, I could if I had the money.)
If the government issued a tender a for million of these, they would probably cost the taxpayer around $300 each.
$300 x (say) 1 million households (in Victoria) = $3 billion. Same as the desal option.

Yes, I'm suggesting that our government 'gives' every household in Victoria a 5000L rainwater tank.
If a householder can afford to 'upsize' for more storage, they can pay the difference.
Likewise, the end-user pays for the associated infrastructure to connect to distribution points.
In both cases, the aforementioned economies of scale will apply.

I'm not claiming this initiative is perfect.
Manufacturing and distributing these tanks will cast a long 'greenhouse' shadow.*
5000 litres of storage will not make most households self-sufficient for water.
Yet the nett potential benefits are massive! …
High-quality drinking water, as opposed to a lifeless collection of reprocessed molecules.
Minimal infrastructure; minimal maintenance (all at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer).
A strong incentive for end-users to optimise every drop of the precious resource 'they' collected and now own and manage.

Will it happen? Not without some fresh thinking. Not without (excuse the cliché) a paradigm shift: a concession by our lawmakers that it's OK to hand back a measure of control to citizens.

As things stand, they just don't get it.

* I'm guessing that a blanket ban on retail bottled water would completely offset the carbon footprint of a million large plastic tanks - but that's another discussion.