User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
(Termoil)
I am glad that Australia's new government is supporting a range of alternative energy initiatives,even at the fairly low level, but the really big big issue for Australia is going to be the shortage of liquid fuels for transport. There are many very expensive solutions( CTL,GTL) to make more fuel available, or to replace some vehicle use( mass transport, expanded rail), but the biggest impact is relatively inexpensive; ensuring that the 1million new cars per year have much higher fuel efficiency and or are duel fuel, either PHEV, petrol/LPG and especially petrol/CNG.Long term PHEV will be a big part of the solution, but is the most expensive option ( and not really available yet) but why not petrol/CNG in a big way.
The present government could start by legislating all vehicles getting less than 10L/100km, to be petrol/CNG capable(or other alternatives). Even a limited range of <100km on CNG just like a limited battery range on PHEV's will cover most daily commuter use. If prices keep rising drivers will ensure that they re-charge with NG every day. If they don't like the performance, or NG is not available, they can stick to petrol( if available) and pay the price.
I recall a Kiwi poster said here why CNG fell from grace a few years ago. There are other problems such as the size and weight of the tanks which I think need a burst strength of 220 bar as opposed to 15 bar for Autogas. At present carbon fibre tanks are too expensive. Therefore it might best suit heavy diesels such as trucks, trains and buses (as in Brisbane). That would free up a lot of diesel if there were also incentives for engine conversions and filling stations plus a guaranteed low excise.
For dual fuel compact cars maybe a fibre CNG tank with a 100km range could work out. If it takes up too much boot space for long trips put luggage on a roof rack and drive slower. We need a life cycle analysis to verify this. I picture the Syd-Melb Hume Hwy crammed with small cars driving in the slow lane under heavy roof racks. Top up with either petrol or CNG where you can get it and it could work out cheaper than flying.
Ferguson must work on this before flogging off all our gas to the northern hemisphere.
It shouldn't be.
In crude oil, Australia produces about 500,000 bbl/day, and consumes about 875,000 bbl/day. So if we reduce our consumption by 43% we can be self-sufficient in oil.
Australia's transport mix is about 85% of trips by private cars, 10% public transport, and 5% walking/cycling. By comparison, countries like Denmark and the Netherlands manage 33/33/33, and Germany 40/40/20. Let's be unambitious and go for a German level - 40% cars, 40% public transport, and 20% walking/cycling.
Ignoring the fact that PT can be electric and use renewable energy, buses use 9% the fuel and trains 6% per passenger-km - that's in Australia with our low use of PT. But let's be nasty to public transport and say it's only ten times as efficient. So moving 10% of trips to PT drops fuel use by 9%, and 10% of trips to walking/cycling drops it by 10%.
Thus, going from 85/10/5 to 40/40/20 would make our fuel use go from 86 units to 44, a drop of 49%. We could then be self-sufficient in crude oil.
As I write recently, ABS figures show that about two-thirds of car trips are discretionary or can be rearranged for efficiency, and WHO figures tell us that "More than 30% of trips made in cars in Europe cover distances of less than 3 km and 50% less than 5 km."
So if we have a shortage of liquid fuels, it's only because we waste so much of them. If you want to drive 1km to the shops for a bottle of milk, then you're going to have to pay the price for that in expensive petrol.
Setting aside issues of climate change, if we were not so stupidly wasteful with our fossil fuels, we could happily burn them for centuries.
Hi Neil
Toyotas announcement today that they are going to build a hybrid in Victoria is a start on the way to PHEVs. It was interesting that this was couched in terms of its carbon reduction ability rather than being sold on its fuel saving ability. The reason I think for that is that the economics of hybrids still don't stack up against buying a small fuel efficient ICE car and just filling it with petrol. The pollies really don't want you to do some hard ass analysis of the total cost of ownership as no-one would buy them.
CNG still has some problems as Boof points out and the price of NG to consumers is about to go up dramatically anyway.
Kiashu is on the only track that really makes sense - reduce the total amoujnt of petyrol used by using the exisitng vehicle fleet more efficiently. This means loading the car with passengers or freight every time it is taken out; asking if the trip is really necessary anyway; seeing if foot or pedals or PT can do the same job; learning to accept that the slow road might yield other delights that you miss out on in the car i.e physical exercise, social intercourse; and palnning to construct your lifestyle around a low energy, locallly sustainable strategies.
The problem for most of the population is that it is simply unthinkable to promote such heretical plan. Barnaby Joyce certainly seemed to think so the other night on the telly when he poo-poohed the idea that bicycels and scooters had any serious role to play against continuation of driving muscle cars everywhere. This is the problem, the politicians don't understand that BAU has actually ended already. The manure has already been launched and is mid flight towards the large spinning blades. My guess is that $175 /bbl is the point of contact.
It seems unthinkable, but really people do respond to bold challenges. WWII had its rationing and "victory gardens", Melbourne has reduced its domestic water use by about a quarter and Brisbane by a half, smoking has halved over the past two decades, and so on.
1. Tax the undesired behaviour to buggery
2. Make regulations about who can do the undesired behaviour, and where they can do it
3. Offer options so that people have some useful choices instead of just "this, or nothing."
4. Advertise publicly the reasons for the change.
That works.
Take for example cars over public transport. As the PTUA reports, however you want to ask the question, most (ie "more than half") people want more money spent on public transport even at the expense of roads spending, and most people will use public transport if it's a frequent, reliable and pleasant service.
If public transport is infrequent, unreliable and unpleasant, people will avoid using it. In this PT is like any other business, but this simple fact has eluded generation after generation of politician and PT operator.
This is where the "options" part comes in: people aren't going to stop using their cars if they have crap PT, and if biking is suicide. But improve the PT service and make roads bikable, and they'll do it.
It's not that people are reluctant to change, it's that government and corporations are reluctant to change. So when you say that the "problem for most of the population is that it is simply unthinkable to promote such heretical plan", and then go on to talk about Senator Joyce, you are mixing things up. It's all quite thinkable for people, it just boggles the rather limited minds of our political and corporate leaders.
Hi Kiashu,
There is no doubt that taxing changes behavior, but it can take a long time(50 years for smoking). Public transport is both expensive to expand infrastructure, takes time and not necessary very efficient. Good for moving masses of people between locations. A city like Sydney has people traveling in all directions kids to school, shopping, to and from work. Based on Big Gav's post above, work related trips may only be minor %of travel, so even if 90% traveled to work via electrical driven mass transit still would require considerable liquid fuel use.
Replacing petrol with CNG has the advantage that there lots of NG in Australia, it does not require major changes to vehicle manufacturing so can be implemented quickly. If all new vehicles had to be duel petrol/CNG could make savings of 5-6% per year in petrol( replacing 7% of the fleet per year). This would at least buy time to improve mass transit where practical, could start by removing all free car spaces at shopping centers, and replacing with shuttle buses from railway stations, and other public transport nodes, as older, pre-Roselands(1960) shopping centers were all built.If fuel does become rationed or really really expensive, the "Westfield type shopping centers" will be begging for help.
That's why I said,
1. Tax the undesired behaviour to buggery
2. Make regulations about who can do the undesired behaviour, and where they can do it
3. Offer options so that people have some useful choices instead of just "this, or nothing."
4. Advertise publicly the reasons for the change.
Any one of those alone does very little. #2 and #4 were done in Victoria for water, and reduced use by a quarter; #1, #2 and #4 were done in Brisbane for water, and reduced use by half.
For smoking, for thirty years there was only #1, and not much happened, the big changes came when they added in #2, #3 and #4.
No single measure is going to have much effect worth mentioning; a combination of measures will have a strong effect.
Bravo.
Yes we need to cahnge the world and we need better politicians. Why is it that the morons always get elected? Joyce represents a constituency of rural Queenslanders and if you want to have your argument in a Longreach pub about public transport options, be my guest. I'll send the ambulance for you.
I had an astounding conversation with a 50+ colleague yesterday who couldn't understand why we all don't just move to LPG because "Australia has plenty of gas, don't we?". He understood much better about my car pooling idea as a way to save fuels and money and thought it was great for "the young ones" but he was too old and needed his own car. He thinks public transport needs improving too, for everyone else.
Polling can also be misleading. It's called the Alexander affect where people lie to pollsters because it is the politically correct thing to agree with a proposition and it feels OK. Their actions in the voting booth however (or on the roads) are a different thing altogether. If I was asked "Would you travel on the bus to work, if it left right outside your door and could get you there on time with a hot latte and paper on the way would you take it?" My answer would be "of course". However I actually do have that option but can't use it becasue of what happens in the rest of my day which requires a car, but I like the idea. I'm not about to cahnge jobs just so I can catch the bus. I supect that there are plenty like me who like the idea of public transport far more than the reality.
I haven't seen the full details of the agreement with Toyota, but the Hybrid better be a plug-in.
We need massive spending on MT, and we need it right now. QLD still subsidises petrol, in this 'CO2-aware' world of ours, and Capt'n Bligh now wants developers to build another half million homes in the south-east corner. All McMansions, of course. No TOD for us Queenslanders!
The cognitive dissonance is stunning.