http://hdl.handle.net/10453/113 2013-06-19T14:58:19Z 2013-06-19T14:58:19Z Morrison Kevin Giurco Damien http://hdl.handle.net/10453/19400 2012-10-12T03:37:02Z 2011-01-01T00:00:00Z

The future of Australia's mineral wealth: Leasing to support an ageing population Morrison Kevin; Giurco Damien Saydam, S.

2011-01-01T00:00:00Z Cordell Dana Neset Tina White Stuart Drangert Jan - Olof http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11394 2013-05-07T05:07:58Z 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z

Preferred future phosphorus scenarios: a framework for meeting long-term phosphorus needs for global food demand Cordell Dana; Neset Tina; White Stuart; Drangert Jan - Olof Mavinic, D., Ashley, K. and Koch, F. This paper puts phosphorus recovery in a global sustainability context, with particular reference to future phosphate rock scarcity and global food security. While phosphorus fertilizers are essential for sustaining high crop yields, all modern agricultural systems currently rely on constant input of mined phosphate rock. However, phosphate rock, like oil, is a finite resource, and global production of high quality phosphate rock is estimated to peak by 2033, after which demand for phosphorus fertilizers will increasingly exceed supply. Phosphorus cannot be manufactured; though fortunately there are a number of technologies and practices that together could potentially meet long-term future phosphate fertilizer needs for global food demand. This paper develops probable, possible and preferred long-term scenarios for supply and demand-side measures. The preferred scenarios together demonstrate how substantial reduction in demand for phosphorus can be achieved, and how the remaining demand can be met through high recovery and reuse of organic sources like human and animal excreta (e.g. direct reuse, struvite crystals), crop residues, food waste and ¿new¿ sources like seaweed, ash, bonemeal and some phosphate rock.

2009-01-01T00:00:00Z Day Denise Sarac Kaarina White Stuart http://hdl.handle.net/10453/7514 2012-11-05T02:42:56Z 2002-01-01T00:00:00Z

What are we saving anyway? The results of three water demand management programs in NSW Day Denise; Sarac Kaarina; White Stuart Australian Water Association The use of demand management programs to achieve permanent and reliable decreases in water consumption through retrofits of water using equipment is relatively new in Australia, and has been carried out on the basis of models which predict savings, and on results of demand management programs undertaken overseas. The availability of information on actual savings achieved by demand management programs in Australia is extremely limited. This paper outlines the results of the evaluation of three retrofit programs undertaken in NSW, two of which involved a visit by a plumber to households to carry out a retrofit of indoor water using equipment at a subsidised price; the other taking a 'hands-off' approach and relying on a discount incentive mechanism to increase the market share of water efficient showerheads.

2002-01-01T00:00:00Z Robinson Jim Fane Simon White Stuart http://hdl.handle.net/10453/7513 2012-11-05T02:41:11Z 2002-01-01T00:00:00Z

The use of levelised cost in comparing supply and demand side options Robinson Jim; Fane Simon; White Stuart Australian Water Association This paper explores the use of levelised cost in planning for infrastructure networks. Levelised cost provides a useful measure comparing supply or conservation options on varying scales on an equivalent basis. Comparison is made to annualised cost, a metric often used as a means of comparing different supply side options. Urban water supply is used as the primary example, however levelised cost is equally applicable to other infrastructure networks, such as electricity or gas. The levelised cost is calculated as the ratio of the present value of projected capital and operating cost of an option to the present value of the projected annual demand supplied or saved by the option. The paper demonstrates that levelised cost is the constant unit cost of supply, provided by an option at present value. It is also the average incremental cost of the option at the point of implementation. When translated to a unit cost, annualised cost does not account for unutilised capacity in large scale schemes, systematically under representing actual costs. By using levelised cost this inherent bias is removed. Use of levelised cost would facilitate the inclusion of smaller scale and more incremental supply options into infrastructure networks providing both economic and environmental benefits.

2002-01-01T00:00:00Z