The General Manager has asserted the plane tree removals, “only target… plane trees planted in pipes.” Yet in the May cull, three of the six trees were not in pipes and in an article dated 4 August, an admission was made that the trees removed would include those that went up to the Henderson St roundabout, thus quite clearly including trees not planted in pipes.

At the 4 April, 2017 Civil & Environmental meeting, the Director of Civil & Environmental Engineering asserted that the May cull of 6 plane trees, “will not have a significant impact upon the existing urban canopy.” By what estimation?  What’s troubling though, about this comment is that it appears to have been made to assuage lingering concerns as to the scale of the removals. Yet if the General Manager’s comments made public in the 4 August edition are to be assessed as accurate, the plan has been all along, to remove the remaining 37 plane trees, in addition to 18 already removed. Only then I imagine, will the urban canopy cover be perceived as effected once and for all.

Then there have been indirect references by some from ISC, to Mark Hartley’s report as if implying he considered there was something wrong with the plane trees planted in pipes. Actually, Hartley made no claim to the health of the plane trees. Yes, roots in several locations have splayed out over the surface, as is the nature of shallow rooted trees. And then there is the nonsense about roots invading pipes, laughable, given that all clay pipes were removed in 1996 and replaced with poly pipes set well under the footpaths. And so this type of rubbish keeps getting disseminated, not to mention the fact that the costing of the multi-million dollar renewal plan has yet to be announced which ISC is legally bound to declare.

The General Manager had made a lot about how ISC has planted 200 trees in several back streets. But should we be so grateful that the planting of so many splindly trees has been relegated to several back streets at the expense of the CBD, making no sizable impact and offering very little in the way of shade?

Frankly, I am tired of all the misinformation and questionable assertions. Enough is enough. 

Wind Power.  It’s big news. Lots of big things being trucked north on big trucks. Big Aussie-made transformers coming all the way from Victoria. And with them of course, jobs for 18 months and community help from corporations – both very welcome.

Much is made of the of the number of homes these installations will power. Same for the reduced CO2 emissions they bring about. Rarely mentioned are the words “best-case scenario” or “optimal conditions”.

These conditions are more difficult to predict and manage than for solar PV installations, which are much “softer” on the grid in terms of managing output, but of course they shut down during darkness.

But behind the scenes, chuffing away, are the stable, controllable “backup” generators such as gas, coal and hydro-electric plants. But because none of them can be “revved up” in a matter of minutes, they are required to churn away in the background, even if not needed, to ensure they can be drawn on immediately to ensure system stability. So the “reduced CO2” claimed is a smokescreen – pardon the pun. Any environmental argument touted for wind farms does not include the actual mW/hrs and CO2 emissions necessary for back-up to ensure continuous, stable electricity supply.

Australia’s electricity costs are the world’s highest, followed closely by the global wind-power leader, Denmark, which has for years imported coal/gas/nuclear generated energy from Europe (at high prices) to manage the intermittency of wind. Conversely, its excess wind power is sold back to Europe at low prices. Not much of a business case, is it?

We now learn that South Australia, lured into leading the way with” renewable” energy, is rushing to commission 9 large “portable” hybrid generators at two Adelaide sites. They will run on diesel - for pity’s sake -  for at least 2 years before they are relocated and switched to gas. Forget the spin, just look at the outcome.  Sheer stupidity.

While Elon Musk’s much awaited mega battery could buffer the intermittency some of SA’s wind power, it’s yet to prove itself in operation. And it will provide only a proportion of SA’s total energy needs and only for a short period, before needing recharge.  Recharge by what means, I wonder?  For if the wind still isn’t blowing or blowing too hard, perhaps the diesel units?.  Clean. Green.

Yes, we’re being conned. Conned by politicians, activists, and a troupe of rent-seekers whose business model articulates primarily on pursuit of taxpayer subsidy, based on suspect, two-dimensional business cases.

One day perhaps, energy storage may strengthen the real viability of wind power, but big trucks, road escorts, tall towers and “Australia’s largest” mask what, in 20 years’ time is likely to look like a massive, debt funded overreaction to two facts.  One; -that our coal powered thermal plants are at or near the end of their designed lifespan, and, Two;- that Australia generates around 1.5% (and shrinking) of global CO2 emissions so any actual reduction in emissions is of almost negligible effect.