A LESSON FOR TASMANIA: Inside Melbourne's secret suburban hydro power system

http://www.theage.com.au/business/by/Darren-Gray-hvew0>
JUNE 29 2017 - 12:15AM

·    
From the outside, it looks like a green shipping container on an industrial block in the suburbs. But on the inside, there's plenty going on.
The box is part of a little-known but growing Melbourne Water network of "mini-hydro" electric plants generating electricity in suburban Melbourne, and in the hills beyond.

This story in THE AGE starts out “from the outside, it looks like a green shipping container on an industrial block in the suburbs. But on the inside, there's plenty going on….The box is part of a little-known but growing Melbourne Water network of "mini-hydro" electric plants generating electricity in suburban Melbourne, and in the hills beyond…”
If you're interested in alternative ways to generate electricity this story has been ticking away in the background for quite some time. Whenever there has been news of this kind of power generation there are always doubters turning up and saying its insignificant, crackpot, fantasy land stuff etc. etc. etc. These naysayers are typically ideologically committed to the Big Power, Super Grid' solutions. – nuclear, big hydro, coal, gas.

This story seems to be turning much of this negativity on its head. It seems that there may now be profitable to intergraded electricity generation within the hydraulics of water reticulation and sewerage systems. Naysayers take note, it’s happening in Melbourne and Sydney and the evidence is Tasmanian policymakers and bureaucrats are looking the other way.
This is the kind of thing that bobs up from time to time that local government in concert with State government needs to be active in the investigation of how such initiatives can be applied in Tasmania not to mention Hobart and Launceston.

WHO SPEAKS FOR THE CITIZENS: Robert Dobrzynski?? The City's Aldermen??

The Ratepayers Association has been pursuing Launceston City Council for decades concerning the need to make provision for and plan for an Eastern Bypass Road.

This effort has long preceded the arrival of Robert Dobrzynski. It more than a little disappointing to read in today’s press that Mr Dobrzynski, on the eve of his departure from his position as General Manager, that he no longer believes a bypass is necessary.

Many Aldermen, including those presently in their positions, were elected on promises and platforms, that they would work for a bypass to be constructed.
The need for a bypass was first established in the Launceston Area Transport Study (LATS) in the 1960s. Alderman Ray Shipp famously carried a copy of this study with him to LCC Meetings and often spoke about it during his long term of service as an Alderman.

Provisions existed in Launceston Planning Schemes to reserve land for the planned bypass, but then planning fashion for the last decade or so, determined that road planning generally was no longer a necessary requirement for Planning Schemes, much to the dissatisfaction and disagreement of the community, including the Ratepayers Association, who took up this lack of planning for roads with the Tasmanian Planning Commission during its Hearings into latter Scheme plans.

The Ratepayers Association took up the debate on many occasions – when developments that would block the course of the Eastern Bypass were proposed; when long term strategic plans and visions were sought and published; when opportunities arose for infrastructure priority lists to be compiled ahead of Federal Elections etc.; and when ill-conceived “bandaid” proposals were aired, such as the formation of a road link extension along the old railway embankment from Forster Street Invermay, instead of the then-vacant course and superior situation of extending Lindsay Street through the edge of the Railyards via Black Bridge to Henry Street to the bypass course.

When the Seapac yard and railway terminus (now TOLL) was first developed, strenuous argument was raised about why this should not have been permitted due to the absence of the Bypass Road and the lack of roads connecting that site to other parts of the City. Residents of Elphin Road, including Mollie Campbell-Smith and the Cimitiere St Glebe Area that in the 1980’s was being rehabilitated as a desirable inner city residential precinct, formed themselves into a very credible and vocal opponent of the TOLL site and opposed the damage being caused to the Cimitiere Street and Elphin Road routes that was to serve it. Launceston City Council promised to accelerate the Eastern Bypass construction and in the interim, extended Boland Street along the edge of the North Esk River, utilising the recently acquired Goods Railyard site, to alleviate the pressures on Cimitiere Street.

It is all too easy for Robert Dobrzynski to now tell Launceston residents and ratepayers that a Bypass Road is no longer required. Launceston residents and road users know only too-well that the roads through the city are hopelessly inadequate, and it is in part this situation and congestion in the central area that has lead to the death of the Central Business District, once the most vibrant retailing and business hub in Tasmania. Congestion, heavy traffic loads and a lack of routes for traffic needing to get through or around the central area continues to be a huge problem, and relocation of retailing and commerce to the suburbs and surrounding municipalities has produced very bad and inefficient planning patters. The living and working amenity of Launceston City has diminished the economic health of the city and property values have plateaued before declining.

Accordingly, the Ratepayers Association supports you in your efforts to have an Eastern Bypass Road and the necessary cross-links planned, funded and constructed.

Yours faithfully,
Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

Just who is a "proper stakeholder" Minister Frydenberg

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4667968.htm

Given that a “stakeholder” was the person who held the money/stake in a bet, the term has something of a ambiguous history in the English language usage.  In matters of governance ‘stakeholder’ has come to mean those with a vested cum pecuniary interest in something – the ambiguity persists unsurprisingly.

However, Josh Frydenberg has it seems invented another class of ‘stakeholder’ in so much as he indicates that in order to be consulted one, it seems, needs to be a “proper stakeholder”.  The question is, who are these ‘proper stakeholders’ and who is it who deems them to be so? After that there are more questions but an answer to this is needed first.

JOSH FRYDENBERG … “And what we need to do is settle our position in response to Dr Finkel’s report, consult widely with the proper stakeholders and then we can start to move it through the political process. To quote Winston Churchill, this is not the beginning of the end, but just the end of the beginning.” ... GO TO: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4667968.htm

Regards,

Ray Norman

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept ”  David Morrison

The VC's interview and other matters

Mercury link http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/utass-professor-peter-rathjen-tipped-to-take-on-vicechancellor-role-at-adelaide-university/news-story/b70ea798408ee43657c26c543edc5a83

Here’s a copy of Speak Up Launceston's FB today and a reader's  comment posted to it and the link to ABC radio interview by Leon Compton  with VC Rathjen. Might be something for Lton Concerned Citizens are interested in???

“Speak Up Lton: "Today, 6 June, it is a year since the devastating floods  of June 6 2016 across Tasmania. Anyone reading about or hearing all the  heart-breaking stories about the floods today and then hearing an ABC  radio interview with university vice-chancellor, Peter Rathjen this  morning, would be shaking their head.
http://www.abc.net.au/…/pro…/mornings/utas-vc-leaves/8592840

Despite all the reports about the floods, despite the ongoing work as a result of those floods and despite the article on rising sea-levels and Inveresk area being inundated,
http://www.examiner.com.au/…/46…/city-inundation-predicted/… . Mr Rathjen apparently still thinks it is fine to relocate a whole existing university campus to a tidal flat where major flood evacuation work took up so much of the SES work last June, and where traffic and the level of congestion on that day had to be experienced to be believed."

A reader's post on Speak Up Lton (obviously also heard the interview and has low opinion of the VC): "Texted the ABC whilst he was on air being unnecessarily lauded!!! Don't think they read any texts on him but really!!

The Chancellor has locked us into a ridiculous and expensive relocation of the university in Launceston to the flood zone which will often be inundated with raw sewage because the plumbing of Launceston needs fixing more than the university needs moving He has corporatised and put in layers and layers of bureaucracy at the
university with outlandish salary rates whilst the university for students has diminished and it's breadth of courses and quality of the  university experience has gone backwards."

Regards, Poppy

A new prison
FROM all I have read and heard we may get a new prison. And why not? Incarcerating people is a growth industry globally, so why not here in Tasmania? A new prison creates hundreds of jobs, both in the building and in the ongoing staffing and supplying of goods and services. I do hope that the powers that be can make a better fit of this new prison than they have at Risdon. I wonder how they will avoid the “cultural issues” at Risdon, identified by Greg Barnes. Perhaps a new building will bring with it new attitudes. In any event the boost to the local economy should ensure that everyone is happy except, of course, the inmates.
Christopher Hayton, Trevallyn.

Climate Action 21
THE Department of Premier and Cabinet recently released Tasmania’s Climate Change Action Plan 2017-2021, which included six priority actions and 37 in total. Incredibly sea-level rise is not mentioned in the document despite the latest projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others of 2.7 metres by 2100. Putting this in perspective, Launceston’s flood levees are about 5.1 metres above present mean sea-level and 3.2 metres above mean high Spring tide. So in 2100 we can expect Spring tides at 4.6 metres, or 50 centimetres below the flood levees. It is time to take the threat of sea-level rise seriously. Acknowledgment would be a start, followed by some common-sense planning laws and reality checks by the University of Tasmania and all levels of government.
Dr Ian Kidd, West Launceston.

_________________________________________________________
Peter Rathjen’S Biography
Professor Peter Rathjen has been the Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Tasmania since March 2011.  

During this period, he has been instrumental in positioning the University as a driver of socio-economic prosperity in Tasmania, including through the creation of vibrant new University precincts and facilities within the CBDs of Hobart, Launceston and Burnie.

Professor Rathjen studied as an undergraduate in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Adelaide. As a 1985 Rhodes Scholar, he undertook a DPhil at Oxford University, studying mobile genetic elements in yeast and mammals.  

As a biochemist, Professor Rathjen specialised in embryonic stem cell research. With his wife, Dr Joy Rathjen, he established an internationally recognised research programme into stem cell biology and stem cell therapies.  Professor Rathjen was a founding member of the Australian Research Council Special Research Centre for the Molecular Genetics of Development and the Australian Stem Cell Centre.  

Professor Rathjen is a non-executive director of the Board of Universities Australia. He is on the Board of the Australian Science Media Centre and is a patron of the Australian Institute of Policy and Science Tall Poppy Campaign.

Prior to taking up this position in March 2011, Professor Rathjen was Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) at the University of Melbourne, where he also held the position of Dean of Science from 2006. Before joining the University of Melbourne, he was Executive Dean, Faculty of Sciences, at the University of Adelaide.
Current board positions

• Universities Australia Non-Executive Board Member, the lead Vice-Chancellor Academic, (2017 - )
• Australian Science Media Centre Board (2007 – 2011 and 2017 - )
• University of Tasmania Foundation Director, (2011 – )
• LH Martin Institute Council, (2013 - ),
• Australian Institute for Policy and Science Board, (2009 - )
• Oxford-Australia Scholarships Committee, (2007 - )
• Australian Institute of Policy and Science: Patron of the Tall Poppies Campaign, (2005 - )
• Tasmania University Cricket Club Patron (2016 - )
  

Previous board and committee positions

• Florey Neurosciences Institute Board
• Florey Prize for Medical Research Committee
• International Education Association of Australia Board, (2012 – 2015)
• The Victorian Institute for Chemical Sciences Limited
• The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Board
• Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium of South Australia (2003-2006); Finance committee (2004-2006): Gardens 150 Program to renew infrastructure
• Botany Foundation, University of Melbourne (2006 - 2008)
• Victorian College of Optometry Board ( 2006 - 2008)
• Bio21 Institute, University of Melbourne (2006 - 2008)
• In2Science (2006 - 2008)
• Patron of the Science Teachers’ Association of Victoria
• Meat and Livestock Association Advisory Board
• External Member, Hanson Centre for Cancer Research
  

Scientific Advisory Committees

• Chairman, Bresatec/BresaGen International Scientific Advisory Board (1992-1999)
  

Publications: Scholarly Book Chapters

1. Chalmers, D., Rathjen, P., Rathjen, J. and Nicol, D. (In press; Jan 5, 2017). Ethics and Governance of Stem Cell Banks. Crook, J. M. and Ludwig, T. (eds.), Stem Cell Banking: Concepts and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1590, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-6921-0_7, (Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017)
2. Rathjen J. and Rathjen, PD. (2012). ES cells. Maloy, S. and Hughes, K. (eds) Brenner’s Online Encyclopedia of Genetics.
3. Rathjen, J. and Rathjen, P. D. (2004). Embryonic stem cells; isolation and application of pluripotent cells from the pre-gastrulation mammalian embryo. Sell. S. (ed) Stem Cell Handbook, Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey, 33-44.
4. Morris, M., Rathjen, J., Keough, R. and Rathjen, P. D. (2003). Mouse embryonic stem cells. Odorico, J. (ed). Human Embryonic Stem cells. BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxon UK, 1-15.
5. Keough, R., Rathjen, J. and Rathjen, P.D. (2003). Properties and therapeutic potential of stem cells. Kenneally,  J. and Jones, M (eds). Aust. Anaesthesia. Ed., 201-212.