Australian PV Systems - World Leader on Residential Installation Costs: Lessons For USA

In 2013, the United States installed more solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity than either Germany or Australia for the first time ever. (the U.S. has triple their combined population, so arguably this should have happened long ago…). 

With the decline of feed-in tariffs and other incentives in Germany, it is likely that the U.S. will continue to outpace that country in new PV installations. However, the U.S. continues to lag behind global PV leaders Germany and Australia in another important category: prices for residential systems installations. As of Q2 2013, the average installed residential system price was $4.93/W compared to Germany’s $2.21/W and Australia’s $2.56/W. That needs to change.

Whether you look at U.S. DOE SunShot targets or RMI’s own Reinventing Fire vision, which has the U.S. solar market scaling from 4.5 GW PV installed per year to 20 GW, system costs have to come down to accelerate residential and commercial customer adoption. A new analysis and report from Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI)—Lessons from Australia: Reducing Solar PV Costs Through Installation Labor Efficiency—identifies opportunities for the U.S. solar market to take important steps in that direction.

Non-hardware costs (permitting/inspection/interconnection (PII), customer acquisition, installation, and margins/overhead) now dominate system prices in the U.S. For sub-10-kW systems, 80 percent of solar system cost decline in the U.S. since 2008 has been due to hardware price reductions. In the U.S., non-hardware costs now account for 70% of system costs. Setting aside margins/overhead, the U.S. spends $1.22/W on PII, customer acquisition, and system installation. PV leaders Germany and Australia, on the other hand, spend just $0.33/W and $0.65/W, respectively. The U.S. clearly can and should pursue significant cost reduction opportunities to eliminate this difference.

RMI and GTRI previously launched a PV installation labor data collection and analysis effort under the SIMPLE BoS project, which investigated differences in non-hardware costs between the U.S. and Germany, including installation labor. 

This 2013 report provided a detailed breakdown of primary drivers of PV installation labor cost differences between the U.S. and Germany. Now, in 2014, RMI and GTRI are following up on that groundbreaking work with further investigation of Australian solar installations.

Australia has emerged as a dominant player in the world residential solar market, with more than 10 percent of households possessing a solar system on the roof and system prices rivaling Germany’s. Even as feed-in tariffs (FITs) have declined, demand in Australia for residential rooftop solar has remained high and costs have continued to decline. Much of this is due to a focus on customer-owned PV, and thus an extremely competitive marketplace around system cost. Both retailers and installers have been forced to lean processes in order to offer lower pricing and gain market share; they rely on high volume rather than high margin to remain profitable. 

According to our on-site analysis, Australian installers are averaging 6.1 labor-hours per kW solar installed, while the U.S. is more than 50 percent higher at 9.4 labor-hours per kW installed. This is similar to averages observed in other industry surveys and studies.


Unlike Germany, Australia does not use motorized lifts, scaffolds, or other advanced installation equipment. Instead, economic incentives drive labor—installers in Australia receive a flat rate per installation, and thus make greater profit by mounting more systems in less time. That Australian installers were able to shift so quickly towards a one-day install as an industry standard indicates that Germany is not an outlier; optimized installations are possible and should be pursued at both the U.S. and international levels.
We noted several factors that may increase efficiency based on observations and analysis of installation practices in Australia, Germany, and the U.S.: 

• Optimizing the pre-installation process
• Reducing time spent on base installations, especially for clay-tile roofs
• Pursuing rail designs that minimize installation labor
• Reducing the number of meters installed in each electrical system to monitor PV output
• Viewing the one-day installation goal as an opportunity to reduce time spent on non-production activities such as meals, travel, breaks, setup, and cleanup

These opportunities vary in magnitude, but in combination could have a significant impact on the number of labor-hours/kW U.S. installers typically invest in system installations. We believe installers in the U.S. could approach or go beyond Australian levels of efficiency by pursuing these primary measures, as well as other opportunities that help the industry approach the one-day installation as standard. 

If it can be done in Australia and Germany, there is no reason it cannot be done in the U.S.

We hope this report on Australia, the report on Germany, and all follow-on work under the SIMPLE BoS project will help the U.S. industry continue to reduce solar PV costs and enable the widespread, cost-effective deployment of residential solar PV systems.

Download the report 

Seralini Study on GM Food Crops

Seralini study republished

I think on balance that the work probably does not adequately convince me that the GM corn is a prime culprit causing harm to the animals [ in this case rats].  Probably too many confounding factors involved to be a clearcut decision.  BUT……..publishing does open the arguments and debate to others, and that it does.  But logical open debate is how science moves forward.  Let it continue!

The article is sourced from Queensland Country Life, but there are comments from elsewhere.

Wider circulation aids the debate on both sides.

http://static.fairfaxrural.com.au/multimedia/images/large/2079764.jpg   

Seralini is trying to convince us that he has a magic coin that only comes up ‘heads’

RELATED

French GM study raises red flags on both sides

GM study attacked anew

Seralini retraction welcomed

Republication of the infamous Seralini study on the toxicity of genetically modified (GM) food crops has been met with renewed criticism from the global scientific community.

French researcher Gilles Seralini’s paper into the toxicity of glyphosate-resistant GM maize on rats was initially published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, then retracted by the journal in December 2013 after scathing reviews from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Australian biotech sector.

It is being republished on 24 June in Environmental Sciences Europe, an Open Access journal, but without significant alteration.

The authors claimed their study showed GM maize causes tumours in rats, but the paper’s design and methodology was pilloried on first publication, primarily for lack of controls.

Alan McHughen, plant biotechnologist at the College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, UC Riverside, USA, said the number of rats used was too small to detect a meaningful difference in treatments – and that this had not changed with republication of the material.  “For those not familiar, it’s as if Seralini tossed a coin two times, and the coin came up ‘heads’ both times,” Dr McHughen said.  “With this result, Seralini is trying to convince us that he has a magic coin that only comes up ‘heads’.

Dr McHughen noted the strain of rats used (Sprague-Dawley) have a natural predisposition to form tumours, regardless of treatment.  “Seralini has not and can not justify this fatal error in experimental design.”

Matthew Cossey, chief executive at CropLife Australia, said the scientific community would not accept "junk science".  “The claims made in the report contradicted the vast weight of evidence in the form of hundreds of independent, peer reviewed studies and decades of research, which show that approved GM crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts,” he said.

Senior Lecturer in the University of Adelaide School of Medicine Sciences, Dr Ian Musgrave, said the “major flaws in this study still remain”.

Dr Musgrave said Professor Seralini used the wrong controls and failed to consistently take into account dose response or measured outcomes.  “The GM corn had no effect on the number of tumours - Roundup (glyphosate) even decreased the number of tumours in male rats, as did the combination of Roundup and GM corn in male rats... (with) no consistent effect in female rats.

“This shows that all we are seeing in these results is due to random variation in a poorly controlled experiment.”

Associate Professor Peter Dearden, Director of Genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, said the paper being published was “identical to the first one”. However, he said the flawed study raised some interesting points which should be further developed with proper methodology.  “The paper was, in my mind, inconclusive, but pointed a direction in which future research could go,” Prof Dearden said.  “Inconclusive data is no reason to retract a peer-reviewed and published paper.  “Retracting the original paper in this unusual way has not served the scientific process well. All good science is a debate, and one that should be held publically in published journals. Only through open publication, replication and exchange of scientific data can we use science effectively.  “Controversial studies should not be buried because of public argument. They should be investigated, repeated, and new data published to either disprove or support the original findings. Only then do we get a clear and robust argument.”

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said there had been a concerted effort to discredit Prof Seralini’s work by the pro-GM lobbyists, and the Seralini study met none of the scientific grounds for retraction.  “The guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing established by the Committee on Publication Ethics... state that the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, honest error or plagiarism - and this study meets none of these criteria.”

The Safe Food Foundation (SFF) welcomed the republication as "vindication of Seralini's work", saying the study raised serious issues about the safety of glyphosate and GM crops.  SFF director Scott Kinnear said renewed focus on the Seralini study - coming on the heels of organic farmer Steve Marsh's appeal - highlighted deficiencies in regulatory assessments for safety.

Mr Marsh unsuccessfully sued his GM-growing neighbour for damages after alleged GM cross-contamination of his crop.  "Justice Martin commented that there were no safety issues with the GM canola grown (in the Marsh v Baxter case)," Mr Kinnear said.  "We disagree with Justice Martin and find that this study is aligned with other studies that point to disruption of the normal hormonal and fertility systems in laboratory animals exposed to low levels of Roundup and GMOs."

Fuelled by Urine - Cheaper than Platinum

Urine powered fuel cell

Cheap fuel cells that use carbonised and dried urine as a catalyst in place of platinum could be a reality in the near future.

Fuel cells often use platinum as a catalyst, driving up the cost of the technology. Researchers have been looking at ways to replace the metal with carbon nanostructures, but those are expensive to produce too.

Researchers from the Department of Advanced Materials Chemistry, Korea University demonstrated that equally effective carbon compounds can be extracted from urine — making them a cheap stand-in for platinum or synthetic carbon.

The scientists collected urine samples from healthy individuals, which they heated to evaporate the water contents, leaving behind a dried, yellowish deposit. They then super-heated various test samples of dried urine in a range between 700 and 1,000 degrees Celsius for six hours to carbonise the urine.

The heating process caused salts and other elements to gasify and leave behind carbon. Urine is loaded with other elements besides carbon, which makes the leftover carbon highly porous — ideal for fuel cell catalysts.

Most importantly, the urine carbon was an excellent conductor of electricity, especially the batch that was heated to 1,000 degrees. Researchers said this is the first time carbon was extracted from urine using this simple method.

According to the scientists, roughly 300 to 400 milligrams of urine carbon can be extracted from a single litre of urine, and the ease of harvest means this could very well be a scalable idea.

GM Breeding Explained Simply

GM: from the field to the lab......and back to the field!!

PETER LANGRIDGE - AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR PLANT FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS

23 Jun, 2014 

GM canola seed: GM canola planting will rise in Australia this year.

Breeders are always looking for new sources of variation

Welcome to GM in Australia, a The Conversation series looking at the facts, ethics, regulations and research into genetically modified (GM) crops. In this first instalment, Peter Langridge describes two GM techniques: selective breeding and genetic engineering.



GENETIC modification (GM) sounds very laboratory-based – people in white coats inserting and deleting genes – but the vast majority of GM work was completed in the field through selective breeding.

Early Middle Eastern farmers collected grain from natural grasslands, but they needed to time their harvest very carefully. If they were too early the grain wouldn’t store well, and if they were too late the grain would spread over the ground making collection difficult.

At some stage, one of these early farmers must have noticed that some heads remained fixed on their stems even after the grain was fully dry. He obviously didn’t understand this at the time, but these were plants with a mutation in the genes controlling seed dispersal.

Farmers began preferentially choosing plants with this useful mutation and planting them, perhaps the first case of breeding and selecting for a novel trait.

Exploiting genetic variation

Gregor Mendel. Wikimedia, CC BY

Systematic breeding really began in the early 1900s when scientists rediscovered Silesian monk Gregor Mendel’s groundbreaking work on genetic inheritance in peas.

Breeding involves utilising genetic variation to produce new combinations of genes and gene variants. A breeder will cross two different lines and then select offspring that have improved performance.

Breeders are always looking for new sources of variation, normally from within the elite germplasm pool – that is, within established varieties. Many important traits, such as disease resistance, are controlled by single genes and can be crossed into elite lines, with only the resistant offspring selected.

But for many crops the level of diversity available within the elite germplasm pool is very narrow and breeders must look further afield for novel variation. This search led breeders to explore land races (varieties grown by traditional farmers) and even wild relatives (undomesticated progenitors of our modern crops).

In many cases crosses between the wild relatives and modern lines will not produce normal seeds, but the embryos can often be isolated from the developing seed and grown in sterile tissue culture to produce viable, fertile plants.

This technique, called embryo rescue, has been widely used and many modern cultivars contain genes from wild relatives.

danbruell/Flickr, CC BY-ND

The normal number of genes present in a crop plant is around 30,000 to 40,000 – the same as for humans. In making the crosses all 30,000 genes from the wild relative are introduced but the breeder may only want one gene.

The genes are linked along chromosomes with each chromosome carrying several thousand genes. The breeders need to break up the chromosomes from the wild relative into small fragments so that only the desired region is transferred – a process called chromosome engineering.

This can take several decades of work, making the use of wide crosses technically difficult and slow. Breeders want other methods of generating useful variation.

Engineering mutations

In the 1950s the idea of inducing mutations became an important technique for creating new variation. This involved using ionising radiation, such as X or gamma rays, or chemical mutagens.

These techniques produce random damage to the genetic information in the plant by changing the DNA directly or knocking out segments of the genome (the genetic make-up). Most mutations are deleterious, and the mutagenesis usually generates many thousands of unwanted changes, so the clean-up can be slow.

After exposing the plants to the mutagen, the breeders need to select for the beneficial mutations and remove the deleterious mutations.

Scientifically the ideal solution would be to be able to take a gene from any source and introduce it into your crop plant to change the plant’s characteristics. This would allow breeders to use variation from diverse sources and make changes just one gene at a time without the extensive collateral damage done by mutagenesis or wide crosses. This is what genetic engineering offers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPE5wlB3Zk

Enter the lab coats …

The first genetically engineered crops were produced in the 1980s and, as in all areas of science, the technology continues to advance. The most widely used method today takes advantage of a natural DNA transfer mechanism.

Several groups of soil bacteria are able to engineer plants for their own benefit. These bacteria transfer a segment of their genome into the plant’s genome so that the transformed plant cells will proliferate and produce compounds that only the bacteria can use. In this way the bacteria control the plant development to produce nutrients for the bacteria.

The mechanisms for this type of natural genetic engineering are now well understood, allowing scientists to change the DNA segment transferred so that the genes causing altered plant growth are removed and new genes inserted.

How does this work practically? In a laboratory the scientist will design and build a DNA sequence containing specific sequences that delineate the region of DNA to be transferred (the left and right borders). 

They then insert the gene of interest and usually a selectable marker, such as resistance to a herbicide.

Agrobacterium tumefaciens attaching to a plant cell. Wikimedia, CC BY

This construct is then introduced into a bacteria called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which readily takes up DNA. The bacteria are then applied to growing plant tissues in sterile culture.

After a period the bacteria are removed and the plant tissues placed onto media containing the herbicide. Only the plant cells that have been transformed (those that took up the construct from the bacterium) are able to grow and divide.

These cells are allowed to multiply and divide until they produce plants, which are taken out of sterile culture to a glasshouse where they can grow to maturity. The genes that have been transferred will now be included in the genetic make-up of the plant.

Different species and even varieties will differ in their ability to take up DNA from the bacterium and to regenerate normal plants. Where in the genome the new DNA inserts is usually random but will preferentially occur in regions containing active genes.

Extensive growth trials and evaluation are needed to ensure that the transgenic or genetically engineered plant behaves as expected.

… and back to the field

In Australia all aspects of genetic engineering research are closely regulated. The researcher, organisation and facilities used must all be licensed and meet tight standards.

Before a field trial can be grown, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) conducts a detailed risk assessment of the genes used, the reasons for the trial, and the design and management of the trial site.

The OGTR have issued 103 licenses for field trials covering 14 different crops. In Australia 37 genetically engineered crops have been approved for commercial cultivation for seven different species, but only GM cotton (eight different events) and canola (three events) are grown to any great extent.

The resistance to GM crops in many parts of the world has encouraged scientists to look for alternative techniques for making targeted changes to the genetic make-up of crops and other organisms.

For example, a new technique called “genome editing” allows us to make specific changes to native genes within the plant that are essentially identical to the changes induced by mutagenesis but at only one site rather than all over the genome. Mutagenesis is widely used and is not subject to regulation – will the same apply to genome editing?


There are other developments that are also challenging the community’s views on new technologies. How will people feel about GM crops where a native gene has been isolated, changed and re-inserted (a process known as cisgenics)?

What about using GM rootstocks engineered for resistance to root diseases, but grafted with non-GM scion so that they produce non-GM apples or avocados?

These questions are now challenging the regulators since the first examples are starting to become available.

---

Peter Langridge, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, receives research funding from Pioneer/Dupont, the Australian Research Council, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, the South Australian government, Australia/India Strategic Research Fund and the US AID program. He provides advice to several public sector research organisation in Europe, North America and to international agricultural aid programs.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article. 
--------------------------------------------------

This is a very readable overview of breeding using genetic engineering techniques.  It is increasingly common as a technique to generate variation, with more conventional selection and assessment being the finishing options.  Genetics is one of the fields where big data really first appeared.  More is better for plant breeding, it seems.......a real numbers game.  More plants to select from and the chances of both qualitative and quantitative traits being adequately assessed!  

Solar Energy Costs Falling Rapidly in Both USA and China - To Equal Coal Prices VERY Soon

China Might Be Winning The Race To Reduce Solar Costs

I did not write most of this material, but the concepts discussed are very relevant for Australia, with major debate now about to commence on removing the Renewable Energy Target and Carbon Tax legislation in Australia.

Are we going in the wrong direction?   This review seems to posit that solar costs will soon equal or be less than energy from the fossil fuel sources [ particularly coal], using PV systems.  This will occur within a few years, and that is well within the planing horizons for new power stations, and also for homeowners to consider the implications for them directly, with self supplied PV power.

Many people, even fanatical advocates of solar power, are unaware just how close we are to reaching a critical milestone in the industry. Within a fairly short space of time, solar generated electricity will be fully cost competitive with coal-powered electricity — at least if the governments of the world’s two largest energy consuming nations have their way.

Both the U.S. and China have a stated goal of reducing the cost of solar generated electricity to that level, and quickly. How they are going about it says a lot about how each economic system works.

In the U.S., despite the complaints of some that a drift toward government control is taking place, private initiative and free markets still rule. The Department of Energy launched the SunShot initiative in 2011, with a stated goal of reducing the cost of solar power to be fully competitive with conventional energy sources by the end of this decade. The program funds grants, incentives and competitions to encourage private sector research that will improve the efficiency and lower the cost of solar energy.

The Chinese, faced with what is in many ways a more urgent need to achieve the same thing, have taken a different approach. In a manner more in keeping with their history and current economic system, they are beating the problem over the head with piles of cash until the desired outcome is achieved. It looks, if this excellent Michael Sankowski piece at Monetary Realism is to be believed, as if they are getting mighty close.

Sankowski maintains that, driven by high levels of pollution and national security concerns, the Chinese government asked a question back in the early 2000s: “How Much Will It Cost To Make Solar Cheaper Than Coal?” The answer was based on Swanson’s Law that states that every doubling of photovoltaic (PV) solar capacity results in a 20 percent reduction in unit cost. Testing that theory, because of low levels of production at that time, would only have cost around $10 billion — a small price to pay for the chance of cheap, clean energy that didn’t rely on importing coal from Australia.

When Swanson’s Law still worked after a couple of doublings of capacity the Chinese government stepped up their efforts. As a result, Suntech now expects the goal to be achieved by 2016, or 2017 at the latest. That’s right: 2016. A couple of years. Of course, Suntech has an interest in exaggerating somewhat, but even so, that is stunningly close.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal accounted for 69 percent of China’s energy production as recently as 2011. Cost comparative solar power and a centralized government committed to change will make that number laughable in a few years.

It should be borne in mind that reducing the cost of solar electricity to parity with coal in China is not the same as it is in America, if for no other reason than that electricity in general, and coal-powered electricity in particular, is more expensive in China than in the US.

SunShot, however, has also been successful, and claims a 60 percent reduction in cost since its inception three years ago. Many believe that their stated goal of solar power at $0.06 per kilowatt hour (kWH) is achievable by 2018. Some of that cost reduction is no doubt down to China ramping up capacity at such a rate and flooding the market, but there have been technological advances over that time, as well.
You can argue all day about which approach is correct. History shows us that innovation from the private sector is the most effective, long lasting change agent there is, but the Chinese approach of heavily subsidizing a massive increase in PV production capacity has been effective. Unfair, short sighted and disruptive, maybe, but effective nonetheless.

Command economies may be terrible at some things but when the rapid marshalling of resources is needed to solve a problem they can be very good at doing whatever it takes.

The simple fact is that with both innovation and increased capacity, the cost of solar energy has fallen considerably over the last few years and continues to do so. If, as looks likely, it does become truly cost comparative with coal in the next few years, then the days of cheap, clean, renewable energy dominating the world’s two biggest energy markets may be closer than you think.

Will that apply to Australia as well?  Based on current thinking in this country.........do not hold your breath.  However, it is obvious that with our energy costs from fossil fuel moderately high, it does seem that change might be coming sooner than most people have really thought it would be, here in Australia!

Article by Martin Tillier, first appearing in Oilprice.com.

Cities Are Heat Islands - Mitigation is Possible

A survey of North American cities by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Global Cool Cities Alliance (GCCA) finds that confronting the challenges of extreme weather, adapting to a changing climate, and improving the health and resiliency of urban populations are driving cities to develop and implement strategies to reduce excess urban heat.

Nearly two thirds of the cities surveyed cited local extreme weather events as a key reason for initiating urban heat island mitigation strategies. U.S. cities are waking up to the growing threat of urban heat and employing a number of innovative approaches suited to their location and priorities," said ACEEE researcher and report author Virginia Hewitt

ACEEE and GCCA surveyed 26 cities in the U.S. and Canada representing all of the major climate zones, geographies, and city sizes. Despite the diversity of the respondents, several common themes emerged.

Local governments are "leading by example" by requiring use of "cool" technologies, such as reflective roofs on municipal buildings, lining city streets with shade trees, and raising public awareness.

Additionally, more than half of the cities have some kind of requirement in place for reflective and vegetated roofing for private sector buildings. Almost every city had policies to increase tree canopy and manage storm water.

"Our report finds that by addressing their urban heat islands, cities are more effectively delivering core public health and safety services, making them attractive places to live, work, and play," said Kurt Shickman, executive director of the Global Cool Cities Alliance.

The report includes case studies on how several cities have responded to urban heat, demonstrating the variety of strategies employed. In response to a study that found that Houston's roofs and pavements can reach 160° °F, the city now requires most flat roofs in the city to be reflective. Washington D.C. has instituted a wide suite of programs such as Green Alleys, which helps residents manage excess stormwater by replacing pavement with grass and trees, and requiring reflective roofs on all new buildings.

The survey also found that most city governments are not acting alone to reduce excess heat. States, neighboring jurisdictions, utilities, developers, contractors, and local building owners are collaborating to create incentives for communities to reduce urban heat and mainstream these practices.

Cities surveyed in the report include: Albuquerque, NM; Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX

Dallas, TX; Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Phoenix, AZ; Sacramento, CA.

Many of these are broadly similar to north Australia in summer, especially those in the SW of the USA.  With climate modelling for Australia predicting major heat issues in north Australia in coming years that will impact on living in the region it is prudent to examine options that will minimise the heat island effects.

A recent scientific journal article clearly showed a 2C effect now in the city of Phoenix in Arizona caused from night time use of air conditioners, and the heat emanated as waste heat was the cause.

What are we now doing here in Darwin?  Yes, we do have vegetation, but there has been little use of reflective roof coatings to mitigate heat gain, nor little use of green roofs.

And nothing seems to have been mandated in building codes for this region, a location where it is always hot, and buildings need cooling [never heating!].

Cool Policies for Cool Cities: Best Practices for Mitigating Urban Heat Islands in North American Cities, visit: http://aceee.org/research-report/u1405

 The survey is available on the Cool Roofs and Pavements Toolkit: http://www.coolrooftoolkit.org/knowledgebase/cool-policies-for-cool-cities/

NOTE - The Global Cool Cities Alliance is a non-profit organization works with cities, national governments, and other stakeholders to advance policies and actions that reduce excess urban heat in order to cool buildings, cool cities, and to mitigate the effects of climate change through global cooling.

Large A$3 million Court Imposed Fine for Coles Supermarkets - Misleading Consumers

Coles supermarkets have received a $3 million fine over selling misleading labelled breads.

This is well documented in the media over the past day or so, with articles here : -

http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/coles-guilty-of-false-freshly-baked-claims/2702534.aspx?storypage=0
and here -
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/coles-found-guilty-of-misleading-customers-over-freshly-baked-bread/story-fnkgdftz-1226958879823

There are many more on line.

One must also be suspicious over many of the claims made by supermarkets about other products.  May not be as misleading as this one, which does seem to be quite dodgy, but are they as potentially as dubious as this issue?

The mislabelled bread issue has been highlighted by ex Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, a major protagonist against Coles in this action, with his high profile capable of getting action.

Bread is not the only overseas, mostly European bakery products, in Coles.  Often some of these are shown as "fresh" ie thawed, and ready to use, although most are frozen.

Are we likely to see a backlash by consumers over the disappearance of Australian food items off supermarket shelves, often driven by profit margins of the supermarket giants?

Live Cattle Exports from Australia Increase Significantly in 2014.

AUSTRALIAN live cattle exports for April have set a new high, recording the greatest monthly volume on record.

Figures released this week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show Australia’s April live cattle exports totalled 170,435 head, which is more than double last year’s level.

It has pushed the fiscal year-to-April number up 89% year-on-year to 921,273 head, with increased demand reported across most export markets.

Indonesia was once again the largest live cattle market, taking 80,428 head in April, up 45% from April 2013 levels, carrying the volume for July 2013 to April 2014 up 140%, reaching 493,874 head.

The second largest export market was Russia, demanding 29,647 head for the month, with the fiscal year-to-April volume twice as much as the corresponding period in 2013, at 47,735 head.

Live cattle exports to China totalled 18,355 head, lifting the current ten-month fiscal period 66% higher to 72,583 head.

Aggregate shipments to Israel totalled 17,200 head in April (up 116%), taking the fiscal year-to-April to 96,691 head (up 124%).

In April, Australian live sheep exports were 224,958 head, up 47%, yet brought the first ten months of the 2013-14 fiscal year 2% lower year-on-year, at 1.61 million head. Qatar demanded the most live sheep, at 74,000 head, up 6% on April 2013, despite a decline of 10% for the July-to-April period, of 426,897 head. Exports to Jordan reached 55,000 head, taking the fiscal year volume back 20% to 203,208 head.

Consignments to Kuwait reduced 40% on the same time last year, to 41,574 head, lifting the period from July 2013 to April 2014 up 35%, to 729,792 head, while shipments to Bahrain totalled 25,000 head.

Live goat exports increased during April, with a monthly total of 5102 head, up 3% year-on-year, seeing the fiscal year volume 29% higher, at 66,366 head.  Malaysia took the majority of exports, at 4097 head, down 17% on April 2013, with the ten-month fiscal period back 8% to 46,190 head.

Singapore received 836 goats for the month, reaching 17,855 head for the fiscal year – all of which had a final destination of Malaysia.

MLA  Source: http://www.mla.com.au/

While this data from MLA tells a positive story, what it does not indicate is the supply from the NT, which would have been the source of most of the stock going to Indonesia.  This is still the main market for NT livestock, and that is probably unlikely to change anytime soon.

More recent unconfirmed data also seems to show more and larger per cent increases in livestock - principally cattle - for China.

There is also market talk of a resumption of sheep sales to Iran, formerly a very large market for Australian sheep for slaughter.  Early days yet!

A Ten Point WeedSmart Management Plan

The 10 Point Plan helps you win the battle against crop weeds. Follow the links below for practical tips and tricks to implement these strategies on-farm, and further information on the research to back up these steps.

1. Act now to stop weed seed set

• Research and plan your WeedSmart strategy
• Understand the biology of your weeds
• Be strategic and committed

 read more...

2. Capture weed seeds at harvest

• Consider your options – chaff cart, narrow windrow burning, baling, Harrington Seed Destructor
• Compare the financial cost per hectare
• more difficult on livestock farms but it can be better managed eg move animals carefully from weedy paddocks, allowing time for seeds to exit the gut.

3. Rotate crops and herbicide modes of action

• Protect the existing herbicide resource
• Repeated application of effective herbicides with the same MOA is the single greatest risk factor for herbicide resistance evolution

read more...

4. Test for resistance to establish a clear picture of paddock-by-paddock farm status

• Resistance continues to evolve
• Sample weed seeds prior to harvest for resistance testing

read more...

5. Never cut the rate

• Always use the label rate
• Weeds resistant to multiple herbicides can result from below the rate sprays

read more...

6. Don’t automatically reach for glyphosate

• Diversity, diversity, diversity
• Consider post-emergent herbicides where suitable
• Consider strategic tillage

read more...

7. Carefully manage spray events

• Use best management practice in spray application
• Patch spray area of resistant weeds if appropriate
• No escapes

read more...

8. Plant clean seed into clean paddocks with clean borders

• Plant weed-free crop seed
• The density, diversity and fecundity of weeds is generally greatest along paddock borders and  areas such as roadsides, channel banks and fencelines

read more...

9. Use the double knock technique

• Any combination of weed control that involves two sequential strategies
• A second application to control survivors from the first

read more...

10. Employ crop competitiveness to combat weeds

• Increase your crop’s competitiveness to win the war against weeds
• Row spacing, seeding rate and crop orientation can all be tactics to help crops fight

read more...

This was unashamedly pinched from the Weed Smart web site, part of the Australian GRDC area.

Weeds cost agriculture and horticulture big bucks every year.  Money that is a monster loss to growers.

Be smart  and realise how much weeds cost your property.  It does not matter whether a pastoral property, a small horticultural grower, or a mixed cropping and livestock site........have a weed management plan.

For more information visit - http://www.weedsmart.org.au/10-point-plan/  where there are further links to relevant material.

Pyrolysis Plant for Perth Gets Closer - Biochar Use to Grow near Perth?

The development of the pyrolysis plant at the Hazelmere Resource Recovery Centre of the EMRC [ Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council] moves closer with the closure of the Public Environmental Review period recently.
More detail is here - http://www.emrc.org.au/pyrolysis-plant-facts.html with a video and some timeline details.


There has also been a widely publicised video on the international magazine Waste Management World newsletter which is seen here - http://www.waste-management-world.com/video-gallery/wmw-weekly-newscast.html?bcpid=2405324449001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEheacc~,POub7blnBC-Leu0uCpdg5kyy6daxQ3__&bclid=2405336528001&bctid=3619981298001
 [ note there are several items - just the first one]


Not too much has been said about the use of the pyrolysed residuals, but it could be a new source of biochar for use in WA.  The soils of the Perth basin especially are sandy and low in carbon - it would be a welcome development.  There are other options for biochar as well, but use in horticulture is well recognised.


The main focus for the plant so far has been gas to be burnt for energy production.


While this plant is modest in size it does illustrate growing interest in Australia for the potential of the technology.


Could it possible that the local Darwin council could potentially seize on the technology and find a partner to develop a plant here?  They were keen many years ago to look at pyrolysis for a waste to oil plant, but the current generation of pyrolysis plants is more focussed on burning flue gas.

World Record Height Green Wall - NEW in Singapore

Recently I noted a world record green wall in Canada.

Did not last long - a new record holder has emerged with a  new large project in Singapore.

The world's largest vertical garden? It's in Singapore

A 24-storey green belt at Tree House condominium in Bukit Timah clinched a Guinness World Record on Wednesday for its sheer size

• 
• 
• 

http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/20140611/cdl-tree1e.jpg

A 24-storey green belt at Tree House condominium in Bukit Timah clinched a Guinness World Record on Wednesday for its sheer size. -- PHOTO: CDL

http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/20140611/cdl-tree2e.jpg

A 24-storey green belt at Tree House condominium in Bukit Timah clinched a Guinness World Record on Wednesday for its sheer size. -- PHOTO: CDL

http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/20140611/cdl-tree3e.jpg

A 24-storey green belt at Tree House condominium in Bukit Timah clinched a Guinness World Record on Wednesday for its sheer size. -- PHOTO: CDL

The world's largest vertical garden is located right here in the Republic: A 24-storey green belt at Tree House condominium in Bukit Timah clinched a Guinness World Record on Wednesday for its sheer size.

Occupying a surface area of 2,289 sq m, the garden is expected to achieve more than $500,000 in energy and water savings a year. Its features include heat-reducing windows and motion sensors at staircases that activate lights automatically.

The vertical garden built by property firm City Developments Limited (CDL) can also reduce the estate's carbon footprint by filtering pollutants and carbon dioxide out of the air. This reduces heat absorption and lowers the energy needed to cool indoor spaces.

Mr Kwek Leng Joo, CDL deputy chairman, said: "With the eco-inspired Tree House, CDL has not only created a place where residents are proud to call home, but more importantly, a green icon which places Singapore on the world map."

Reported on by Audrey Tan in the Straits Times June 12.

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/environment/story/the-worlds-largest-vertical-garden-its-right-here-singapore-2014061 #sthash.gJ6leQpa.dpuf