Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

Publisher & Editor-in-Chief Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD Editor Greg Swain, B.Sc.(Hons.) Technical Staff John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.) Robert Flynn Rick Walters Reader Services Ann Jenkinson Advertising Manager Brendon Sheridan Phone (03) 9720 9198 Mobile 0416 009 217 Regular Contributors Brendan Akhurst Garry Cratt, VK2YBX Julian Edgar, Dip.T.(Sec.), B.Ed John Hill Mike Sheriff, B.Sc, VK2YFK Ross Tester Philip Watson, MIREE, VK2ZPW Bob Young SILICON CHIP is published 12 times a year by Silicon Chip Publications Pty Ltd. A.C.N. 003 205 490. All material copyright ©. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written consent of the publisher. Printing: Macquarie Print, Dubbo, NSW. Distribution: Network Distribution Company. Subscription rates: $54 per year in Australia. For overseas rates, see the subscription page in this issue. Editorial & advertising offices: Unit 34, 1-3 Jubilee Avenue, Warrie­ wood, NSW 2102. Postal address: PO Box 139, Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097. Phone (02) 9979 5644. Fax (02) 9979 6503. ISSN 1030-2662 PUBLISHER'S LETTER Australia can make those greenhouse reductions Hands up all those people who have not been impressed by Prime Minister John Howard’s attempt to get different targets for Australia’s greenhouse emissions. Mr Howard maintains that Aus­tralia should be a special case, essentially because of our mining and metal refining industries. This didn’t cut much ice with most other countries because they all reckon that Australia is part of the same planet – an argument that’s difficult to disagree with. In fact, Australia does not have an unusually energy-intensive economy in comparison with other OECD countries. We might be mining-intensive but we are not exactly overloaded with heavy industry. The OECD as a whole has reduced energy use per unit of economic output by more than 20% over the last 20 years while Australia has improved by only about 5%. By not agreeing to a 15% reduction in greenhouse emissions (below 1992 levels) by the year 2010, we are ensuring that there will be little or no change to our wasteful ways. It would be better to aim for the target, even if we failed trying. In fact, our government is taking a completely wrong ap­proach. Rather than thinking in terms of reductions in greenhouse emissions and how much it might cost, the correct approach is to see how much money might be saved. Just recently, a Sydney fast food chain has shown it can reduce its energy bill by 22%, while making a 33% return on the investment in energy efficiency. That is a very good return on investment in anybody’s language. Other fast food chains are following suit and taking meas­ures to reduce the cost of lighting, air conditioning and cook­ing. This is all pretty easy stuff which leads to the question: why weren’t they making these savings years ago? The same ques­tions should be asked of virtually every company and public body in Australia. At present, the answers are pathetic. In truth, Australian companies and public organisations are poor performers by comparison with the world’s best, not only in terms of energy efficiency but in terms of return on sales, return on investment, return on equity and virtually any other measure you might care to think of. Consider how good greenhouse reductions (read energy savings) can be from a typical company point of view. They make an investment which is subject to the normal depreciation allow­ances (ie, they get tax deductions) and then any savings they make are straight profit. Many companies then go on to claim the good publicity by claiming that they are “environmentally green and clean” and all that rot. But the real reason to make the investment is to make (or save) money. They don’t have to “care” about the environment at all. Let’s face it, a reduction of say 20% over a period of 12 years is only 1.5% per annum which is pretty tiny really. Many companies could make the 20% reduction in just one year. Can’t we as a country manage the target? Australia is supposed to be the “clever country”, isn’t it? Leo Simpson WARNING! SILICON CHIP magazine regularly describes projects which employ a mains power supply or produce high voltage. All such projects should be considered dangerous or even lethal if not used safely. Readers are warned that high voltage wiring should be carried out according to the instructions in the articles. When working on these projects use extreme care to ensure that you do not accidentally come into contact with mains AC voltages or high voltage DC. If you are not confident about working with projects employing mains voltages or other high voltages, you are advised not to attempt work on them. Silicon Chip Publications Pty Ltd disclaims any liability for damages should anyone be killed or injured while working on a project or circuit described in any issue of SILICON CHIP magazine. Devices or circuits described in SILICON CHIP may be covered by patents. SILICON CHIP disclaims any liability for the infringement of such patents by the manufacturing or selling of any such equipment. SILICON CHIP also disclaims any liability for projects which are used in such a way as to infringe relevant government regulations and by-laws. Advertisers are warned that they are responsible for the content of all advertisements and that they must conform to the Trade Practices Act 1974 or as subsequently amended and to any governmental regulations which are applicable. 2  Silicon Chip