The Bullroarer - Thursday 29th May 2008

NZ Herald - Qantas cuts services due to rising fuel prices

Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said the magnitude of the changes called for a reduction in staff numbers, and the carrier had already launched an accelerated leave program to mitigate the requirement for redundancies. "The fact is that fuel prices are something we have no control over, so we have to look harder at areas we do have control," Mr Dixon said. ...

Air New Zealand also responded to higher fuel costs today, downgrading its full year earnings forecast to at least 25 per cent below last year's level.


The Age - Oil prices rebound, 'oil-shock' warning

[.....]
Prices gained as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned the world was facing a "great oil shock" that could only be addressed by urgent action on a global scale.

The Age - Fuel price debate ignores real issue

Even by the debased standards of political debate in this country, the petty point-scoring between the Opposition and the Government on easing the burden of petrol prices has achieved a new low.
[.....]
As the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) says, "high prices are the market signal that we will reduce our oil dependence. Suggesting that high prices are temporary misleads the public and allows governments to delay difficult decisions."

[.....]

Until recently, the Paris-based International Energy Agency was in denial about peak oil. In a recent interview, the IEA chief economist said the forthcoming forecast through to 2015 (to be published in World Energy Outlook for 2008) would show an annual decline in oil production of 3.7% to 4.2%.

According to ASPO, the world is producing one barrel of oil for every three we consume. Production of oil peaked in Australia in 2001. Thanks to falling domestic production and higher import prices, net imports are expected to increase from about $12 billion now to about $30 billion in 2012. If the excise or GST on petrol is reduced, the electorate will demand a similar response every time the price goes up. This nexus must be broken now. It would be obscene if the Rudd Government cut the GST on petrol while continuing to impose the GST on rail, tram and bus fares. We all pay indirectly for higher petrol costs.

[.....]

Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.

kdavidson@theage.com.au

Stuff.co.nz - Airlines reel in fuel price turbulence

Record jet fuel prices have hit home, with Air New Zealand downgrading its profit forecast a second time and Qantas announcing fleet and route changes.

[.....]

Air New Zealand says it will now make less than $200 million profit before unusuals and tax for the year to June 30 as fuel surged to US$173 a barrel.

[.....]

In a market update, the airline says in the last month the price of oil has risen from US$119 a barrel to peak at over US$135 a barrel last week.

The refining margin between oil and jet fuel had almost doubled from US$24 a barrel to US$40 a barrel. The increase in the refining margin is not covered by the airline's oil hedges.

ABC - Petrol prices forcing truckies out of business: TWU

The Transport Workers Union (TWU) says the Australian public is at breaking point with rising fuel prices and the Federal Government needs to act urgently.

TWU secretary Hughie Williams says his members are going out of business daily.

He says many truck drivers entered four and five-year contracts before the price of fuel went up and now they cannot make adjustments to cover the extra costs.

NZ Herald - Lake levels at critical point

Fair autumn weather not only means hydro lakes are dwindling but wind farms have been hit by calm conditions during the past fortnight.

Hydro lakes storage was yesterday at 58 per cent of average, prompting a statement of "concern" from Energy Minister David Parker. Wind's contribution to generation has been less than half of its potential for the past two weeks.

Generators Meridian and TrustPower, which have wind farms in Manawatu, blame "the vagaries of mother nature" and typically calm autumn conditions for the reduced output.
[.....]
The Wind Energy Association said wind generation was predictable in the long term but there were short-term variations.

ABC - Rural patient travel subsidy boost sought as fuel price soars

Rural doctors are warning high fuel prices across regional Queensland could deter some people from seeking lifesaving medical treatment.

The Rural Doctors Association has called on the State Government to increase subsidies paid to remote Queenslanders who need to travel to access medical services.

ABC - Swan defends fuel watch scheme

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: Treasurer Wayne Swan has been given the job of trying to defuse the news that the Government has so comprehensively rejected advice from four departments.

Herald Sun - Oil crisis rage spreads

EUROPEAN leaders are calling for greater international action to halt spiralling oil prices amid an outbreak of furious public protests.

The Age - Crystals shed light on solar energy

Affordable solar energy for every household has moved closer to reality thanks to a ground-breaking discovery at the University of Queensland (UQ).

Professor Max Lu, from UQ's Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, said researchers were one step closer to the holy grail of cost-effective solar energy.

"We have grown the world's first titanium oxide single crystals with large amounts of reactive surfaces, something that was predicted as almost impossible," Professor Lu said.

"The crystals absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity."

The Age - 'Abrupt' slowdown in economy tipped

EVIDENCE that Australia's growth will slow significantly in coming months continues to build, with a survey forecasting an "abrupt" slowdown in economic activity.

[.....]

Mr Fraser, who was Reserve Bank governor between September 1989 and September 1996, raised questions about the target while attending the Government's 2020 Summit in Canberra last month.

Yesterday, he reiterated his view that the central bank should rethink the way it attacked inflation, if rises in food and fuel prices persisted. "If secular fuel prices push up inflation, either directly or indirectly, should the Reserve Bank be pushing up interest rates because of inflation that's driven by those secular increases, or does there need to be some other treatment?" he said.

The Australian - Green road all but ignored

WORLD oil prices have more than quadrupled in the past six years and more than doubled in the past year. Daniel Yergin, a US authority on energy, points out that during the 1970s, prices rose for eight years in a row before falling. He says this time they could continue rising for longer before reaching a "break point".

[.....]

Three weeks ago, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said tackling the problem "is not a choice between a no-cost option and an option with costs. It is a choice about whether we take responsible action now or wait and face much higher costs and worse impacts in the future." They are fine words, but so far that is all they are.

ABC - Fuel watch benefits disputed

TONY EASTLEY: There's a lot of debate about whether the FuelWatch system first introduced in Western Australia in 2001, will actually work.

The national system is due to be rolled out across the country in December.

The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the scheme will reduce fuel prices by 1.9 cents a litre based on figures compiled by the competition regulator.

But an international petroleum industry research company claims that the Prime Minister is misquoting the ACCC's report.

NZ Herald - Power station reopened, hydro lakes approach '92 levels - but 'no crisis'

The Government is being accused of ignoring a looming power crisis as hydro lakes fall towards half their normal levels and electricity spot prices soar.

The fear of a winter crisis yesterday spurred Contact Energy to reopen part of a power station mothballed only last year because of asbestos danger.

Workers in breathing gear and protective suits will run a 100MW gas-fired machine in the 32-year-old New Plymouth station around the clock to help boost supply during winter.

wind generation was predictable in the long term but there were short-term variations.

It might be cheaper than other energy, but you have to have enough total power generation that you don't need it. This means that the total capital outlay is greater to get the same total effect. This is a killer in the current circumstances where we have to urgently shift to non-fossil fuel. Basically it means that if you build a nuclear power plant or a clean coal power plant [if that were possible] then you are going to sell less electricity to get your money back because those wind farms have low marginal cost and can outbid you when the wind blows.

The same applies to solar. If you think solar is more reliable, then think about the year without a summer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora). We need to get nuclear (with thorium and breeding) working before the fossil fuels run out. Wind and solar are distractions from a very big job.

In NZ nuclear is the distraction, a wide diversified portfolio of wind, solar and hydro is the answer. A long wet summer will only fill up the hydro lakes!

Nuclear is a dead end - there is no point trying to retreat to some 1950s fantasy of "energy too cheap too meter".

We shouldn't try to switch from one finite fuel source to another.

We shouldn't continue to run our energy infrastructure on non-renewable materials that need to be continuously extracted from the ground.

We shouldn't have waste issues to deal with that last for thousands of years.

We shouldn't have security issues to deal with because we are dealing with materials that can be used in nuclear weapons.

We need lots of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave, hydro, biogas and other clean energy sources to be brought online - it can be done, and we should do it.

We should certainly do as much geothermal and tidal as possible, and anything else that is not subject to the vagaries of random events, and doesn't give up just when it is most needed. And I've no doubt I was wrong, and it is ok to have a significant percentage from more fragile sources if they're cheaper. Are these safer options enough? I urge everyone to look at the work of Prof David McKay: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/. He's writing a book on sustainable energy. He's very left wing -- I've read Americans dismissing him as a Marxist. When I first started reading his talks and book draft he was anti-nuclear. In the process of writing it he decided that Britain could not survive without a nuclear component. By the way his most recent talk has been videoed and should turn up soon. I hope TOD links to it when it does. See http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/12324. The problem with his arguments is that he doesn't allow enough for the fact that post-oil energy will be of lower quality, so we'll need more of it. He has given a google techtalk, but that was on his software dasher, which allows disabled people to type if they can control one muscle.

I also strongly recommend David McKay's 2 slogans: "Numbers, not adjectives" and "Modelling, not arm-waving". TOD does of course follow these principles in its study of peak oil.

I don't think nuclear will be cheap, but I do think it will definitely have a useable EROEI. I have my doubts about all renewables. When we subsidize something (like bio ethanol) that has an EROEI of less than 1 it just makes it more likely that there will be an economic collapse that we never recover from. No 2nd chance.

Hmm, well I've used a lot of adjectives, and done a lot of arm-waving. I'd sure like to see more numbers and more modelling.

I agree. We can't possibly leave out nuclear particularly since Australia has about 40% of the world's easily recovered uranium. However there is no conceivable way we can generate 50 GW of low carbon electricity by say 2030 unless perhaps we cancel some LNG export contracts. The time for dreaming is long past. I think we should aim for say 10 GW of nuclear baseload by 2030 while still going flat out on renewables.

So if we have a resource we have to dig it up and use it?

Why?

This is the sort of thinking that got us our "export raw materials, import manufactured products" economy - a banana republic, internationally irrelevant and with a growing debt.

And if having lots of uranium means we're obliged to use it, then surely having lots of coal means we have to use that, too? Sheriff Johnny would be proud!

Your talk about "the vagaries of random events" is just nonsense - nuclear power is also subject to these things and a large 2GW centralised power station suddenly going offline is much harder to manage than a wind farm losing steam for a while.

In any case, you can build energy storage into renewable facilities so they are online 24/7, which is what the new CSP operators are doing.

Problem solved.

Nuclear is a dead end which creates waste and decommissioning problems - at immense cost.

Solar and wind are the 2 biggest and best energy sources available - we should use them.

Unless you can come up with insolation data for one of these years "without summer" this is just speculation. You could just as credibly question coal or nuclear plants ability to generate the extra supply needed during the winter season that would follow such a disaster. What is certain is that natural disasters of all kinds are the testing times for our infrastructure regardless of how it is constructed.

Actually I'm inclined to agree that solar energy systems would still work at a reduced rate. I might say that volcanic eruptions causing worldwide problems are not that rare: 1 or 2 a century. And here we are with just 60 days supply of food for the world. Just in time: it's great when it works.

I don't know who Kenneth Davidson is, but he has done his homework

Ken Davidson has been an economics columnist for The Age for years. He's been talking sense on climate change and peak oil for a long time as well.

yes.. i've taken that comment out. we know ken davidson very well.

he was even on the panel for the ASPO hosted opening of "A Crude Awakening" last year.

"According to ASPO, the world is producing one barrel of oil for every three we consume."

I think he meant "discovering" rather than "producing".

It looks as though Australia’s official government forecaster (ABARE) has learned nothing since the departure of its former director, Dr Brian “pay-enough-and-even-roosters-will-lay” Fisher. In March this year they were predicting crude prices would decline to “around US$67 by 2013”. If this is the quality of advice being given to the Government then no wonder they are confused over petrol pricing policy .
[Apologies if this has already been discussed on TODANZ.]

“In 2008 the WTI oil price is forecast to average over US$86 a barrel, an increase of 20 per cent from 2007. The higher oil price in 2008 reflects continued strong demand and weak growth in non-OPEC supply, particularly in the first half of 2008. In addition, OPEC has stated that the world oil market is sufficiently supplied and declined to increase production quotas at its meetings in February 2008 and December 2007. In real terms (2008 dollars) the WTI crude oil price is projected to decline gradually to around US$67 a barrel by 2013.” [ From “Australian Commodities” , March 2008 http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/08ac_march/htm/energy.htm

See also http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/08ac_march/excel/table_16.xls and
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23774847-25072,00.html

There are two certainties in life:

1. ABARE always predicts that oil prices will decline.

2. ABARE is always wrong.