 | UITP Condemns Emissions Trading Scheme | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | Over a barrel - a new vision needed |  |
The Bullroarer - Tuesday 22 July 2008
Posted by Big Gav on July 22, 2008 - 10:02am in The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand
Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon - Preparing Australian aviation for a new world
Oil, of course, is a finite natural resource and whether or not the world has reached "peak oil" is a matter of debate. But there is no question that the cost of finding and extracting oil will continue to climb. Today’s fuel prices also derive from a long period of sustained global economic growth, notably in China, India and the Middle East. And this, of course, is the result of globalisation. Everyone in this room today is feeling the impact of high fuel prices. And while we welcome last week’s sudden drop in prices, there is no guarantee that this trend will last.
Right now airlines around the world are cutting routes and capacity, grounding and retiring aircraft, and shedding staff - it is likely that 100,000 jobs worldwide will be lost before this calendar year is out. In the past six months alone 24 airlines have closed down completely. The major US carriers are now planning to ground 465 aircraft - that is more than twice the size of the QANTAS fleet.
SMH - Flicking the switch from hot air to usable heat
In centralised power stations, two-thirds of the energy generated is dispersed into the atmosphere as heat, and further losses occur in transmission and distribution across the grid. Fifty per cent of Britain's water resources are used to evaporate this waste heat.
In Woking, we installed a gas-fired system (far less polluting than coal), which generates electricity locally. Heat from the generation process is captured and piped underground to supply heating and hot water. This is cogeneration, and in some countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, more than 50 per cent of their energy comes from cogeneration.
In a further step - trigeneration - waste heat is converted to chilled water for air-conditioning and refrigeration. Trigeneration has a huge impact in reducing carbon dioxide emissions since it displaces electricity that would otherwise be consumed by conventional air-conditioning, generates more low-carbon electricity and does not use greenhouse gas or ozone-depleting refrigerants.
In Woking, trigeneration - supplemented by fuel cells and renewable energy such as solar panels - enabled the town to produce 80 per cent of its own power by 2004 and to drop its CO2 emissions by 77 per cent in 14 years. The power and heat was also cheaper for customers.
The Australian - Alternative fuel will strengthen Australian security: Jamison's
OIL production in Australia has peaked and the alternative fuels industry needs to be significantly expanded in response, an expert research group says. Australia is fast running out of time to cut its dependence on crude oil, much of which is imported, and the stop-start approach to ethanol production has not helped provide a feasible alternative.
These are the findings of the Jamison Group, which is funded by NRMA Motoring. “Oil production in Australia has already peaked,” the group warns in its report, A Roadmap for Alternative Fuels in Australia.
The Australian - Big gas find on the NW Shelf
US energy firm Hess Corporation has made a significant natural gas discovery off the Western Australian coast on the rich North West Shelf. The discovery was the second for Hess in the 780,000 acre (31,500ha) permit area it bought last February for a record $500.9 million. Hess holds a 100 per cent interest in the WA-390-P Permit, which borders the $15 billion Gorgon gas project, and has an estimated gas resource of 2-15 trillion cubic feet.
SMH - Rudd sails through greenhouse test despite lack of green flagellation. Gittins a peak oiler too now ?
Of course, in the case of petrol the compensation will be linked directly to consumption. The inclusion of petrol in the scheme means that, at the illustrative initial carbon price of $20 a tonne, the notional rise in price is about 5.5c a litre. But this would be offset by a cut in the petrol excise of 5.5c a litre. So isn't this a glaring case of political expedience eliminating the price incentive to reduce petrol use?
Given the 40c a litre increase in petrol prices we've seen in the past year, I hardly think so. A price signal is a price signal. The precise source of that signal doesn't matter much. And if an extra 40c a litre doesn't encourage conservation, why imagine a further 5.5c would make all the difference?
It's possible, of course, the world price of oil will have fallen significantly by July 2010. If so, that will be a problem, but it's more likely to have risen even further by then. If you think there may be something in the "peak oil" contention, we'll be getting all the price signals we need to reduce petrol consumption.
ABC - Cloncurry mayor up-beat over geothermal find
The Cloncurry Mayor says the discovery of a new, clean, energy basin in north-west Queensland could mean more significant growth in the region. The Queensland Government has announced the discovery of the Millungera Basin, where hot geothermal rocks have been found about 100 kilometres east of Cloncurry.
The Australian - Orica says shortage of ammonium nitrate looming
EXPLOSIVES, chemicals and paint maker Orica says a shortage of ammonium nitrate is looming and new manufacturing plants are required. Ammonium nitrate is a key ingredient in the manufacture of explosives.
Orica managing director Graeme Liebelt said today that supplies of ammonium nitrate from China and Russia had been easily available until the last few months. But in the past three or four months, China had moved to stop exports of ammonium nitrate by way of increasing taxes on exports.
The Australian - Soaring oil prices contribute to record revenue at Oil Search
OIL Search said today its first half revenue rose 52 per cent on year to a record $US466.8 million on the back of soaring oil prices.
The Age - No sense in allowing emissions to rise: Wong
The federal government has ruled out a climate change model that lets pollution levels rise, saying it makes no sense to allow an emissions increase to accommodate industry expansion.
Brisbane Times - The even greater global warming swindle
THE controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle misrepresented several leading climate scientists to try to convince people that human-induced climate change is a fraud, Britain's broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has found.
The film, which claimed it would expose "the biggest scam of modern times" and was aired by the ABC last July, had been hailed by some commentators as a definitive counterpoint to Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.
But Ofcom found the film to have unfairly represented the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and mangled the views of several leading climatologists. The final report, released in London last night, says the film breached several broadcasting guidelines in Britain.
The Age - River towns brace for water crisis
MORE than 50 Victorian towns would be affected if dire drinking-water predictions for the Murray Darling Basin prove accurate. Drinking supplies in towns along the Murray have been assured for the next 12 months, but the uncertainty of supply beyond that was causing concern for thousands of Victorians yesterday in towns such as Mildura, Swan Hill, Wodonga and Echuca.
Peak Energy - The London Array Is Back On
Peak Energy - Damming The Amazon
Peak Energy - GM's Solar Rooftop
Peak Energy - Peak Oil Goes "The Full Monty"
Peak Energy - Amory Lovins On Nuclear Power
Peak Energy - Iraqi Prime Minister Backs Obama Troop Exit Plan
Peak Energy - Nature's Internet: The Vast, Intelligent Network Beneath Our Feet
Peak Energy - Mind The Energy Gap
One piece of video I like to refer people to from time to time is Hans Rosling's TED talk from a few years ago, which looks at population dynamics and shows the downward trend in growth rates dramatically using some great visualisation techniques. Since then, Hans has done a series of online talks that he calls "Gapcasts", the latest of which is on energy.
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- March 2010 (12)
- February 2010 (11)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (6)
- October 2009 (7)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (10)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (14)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (16)
- February 2009 (16)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (15)
- November 2008 (23)
- October 2008 (25)
- September 2008 (24)
- August 2008 (30)
- July 2008 (44)
- June 2008 (38)
- May 2008 (48)
- April 2008 (43)
- March 2008 (29)
- February 2008 (32)
- January 2008 (30)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (32)
- October 2007 (11)
Peak Oil will not only kill the mining boom through reduced demand but higher costs such as Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) explosive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO
The component AN is made from natural gas and FO is petroleum based. Every year billions of tonnes of rock need to be blasted with ANFO, dug up with diesel powered excavators, transported on diesel trucks then crushed. Metal ores need concentrating in electrically powered facilities then smelting with coking coal or cheap electricity. I don't see wind and solar coming to the rescue.
Goodbye mining boom it was good while it lasted.
All of the equipment can be electrically powered, and thus can run off wind and solar.
They could use coal seam methane to make the ammonium - which just leaves the FO problem.
No point blowing things out of proportion...
Not all the equipment in an open cut mine can be electrified.Drills,draglines,face shovels - yes
Haul trucks - no.A lot of the hauls are several kilometres.I've seen photographs of old open cast mines in the US which used rail down into the pits.
I can't understand why Orica are importing ammonium nitrate when we have ample natural gas for this.
Probably on the grounds of cost but it would not be making our balance of payments look any healthier.Classic case of deregulation working contrary to the interests of the nation.
Boof,I wish you were right about the resources boom but I can only see this ending when the markets collapse,at least in part.Sad about our "fearless leaders'" short term thinking.
It is interesting to see the change which has become apparent in some of the MSM in the last few months.A few degrees more consciousness about the coming energy crisis but still not connecting in any meaningful way with global warming.Nothing at all about the monster at the bottom of these problems - population and immigration.Perhaps if we ignore it the monster will go away?
It's not merely population, it's consumption and waste. I = P x C, or impact is proportional to population times consumption. Each are equally important, however while population changes relatively slowly, consumption can change overnight.
What we find is that the poor countries say, "obviously consumption is more important, you rich countries should do something!" and the rich countries say, "obviously population is more important, you poor countries should do something."
So when you say that population is more important, what you're doing is making excuses for not changing. The thing is that we Aussies, as individuals, can do most of - stop flying, get rid of our cars, stop buying new stuff, reduce meat-eating, turn off AC and heating and use fans and jumpers instead, and so on - and thus we halve our consumption in a day. But some Indian woman living in the slums of Mumbai cannot kill 3 of her 6 kids.
Thus, while population is important, it's hard to change quickly, while consumption can be changed quickly. When dealing with a problem often we'll find that there are a few ways to deal with it - we can choose the slow and difficult way, or the quick and easy way.
We Aussies prefer the slow and difficult way, because that lets us off the hook, we get to say, well, if only those stupid darkies would stop having so many babies! The most sensible course is to take the quick and easy way, and then begin on the slow and difficult one. That is, Westerners ought to begin by halving their consumption and emissions, and then we can address the world's large population.
Diplomatically that's also the most effective solution to problems of resource depletion and climate change. A lot of the international debate about what to do is dominated by a kindergarten game of "you first!" The US says any treaty where China does not reduce emissions is useless, China says why should China reduce emissions when 300 million of its people still live on less than a dollar a day, and the US uses a quarter of the world's oil and refuses to reduce, and so on. Each wants the other to act first.
Because our Western consumption is so wasteful, it's easy for us to act first. There's so much waste we can cut and not at all reduce our quality of life. But largely we spend more time whinging than acting. For example, these little Aussie battlers are four people who live in the same house and drive in four separate cars to the same workplace every work day. All drive real gas guzzlers. They go to "different shifts each morning" but because it's the morning, some of them must be just an hour or so apart, and something could be worked out - one goes to work and the other to a nearby gym or cafe for a bit, etc. They just need to pull their fingers out, use their imaginations a bit and get to it, and could at least halve their fuel use. But they'd rather whinge, and I'm fairly sure they think the high populations of the Third World are a big problem, too. This is depressingly common.
Lastly, the proven solution to high birthrate is rising education, prosperity and a political voice for women. However, for various reasons both we in the West and the males in charge in the Third World are not that keen on rising education, prosperity and a political voice for women in the Third World.
We in the West can halve our consumption and emissions today. It's time to get our shit together in a sock and wire it tight, and do it. As Yoda said, "do or no do, there is no whinge."
Kiashu,there is a Murdoch University Arts website which publishes a quarterly magazine,People and Place.The latest issue has an article on Australia's population which states that it should be pegged at 22 million and that immigration should cease as it is just making the task of urgent change more difficult.I haven't had a chance to read it in it's entirety yet.It comes from their Centre for Population and Urban Research.
Surprisingly the link came from articles today in the Murdoch press - Courier Mail and Herald Sun.
A pleasant surprise to see Newscorp finally getting it,at least a little bit.
In Australia population can be changed quickly as we have not yet got into the extreme zone.
We need a near complete cessation of immigration.I think about 10,000/annum(total,not net)would do.
Lunatic welfare for breeders,like the Baby Bonus,should be scrapped.
We could set an example for other countries in this regard as well as the actions that you mention.
I agree with most of what you say however I am not in the whinger cohort just because I draw attention to a very important issue,among others.
Well, bully for Murdoch Uni. So what?
Newscorp traditionally publishes anything which makes Moslems or dark-skinned people look bad, and white Christian middle-classed people look good.
Again, population changes only slowly, and is most reliably kept low by the empowerment, education and prosperity of women; consumption can be changed overnight.
Naturally we in the West are not too keen on changing consumption, we'd much rather all those nasty dark-skinned people stopped having babies. That, we hope, would let us keep on driving our SUVs and eating burgers.
I don't know what others think but I see no way an aluminium smelter for example could be 100% wind and solar powered. I think at least 50% of the electrical input has to be low cost baseload which is yet to be demonstrated from wind and solar. If we descend into a Mad Max world of energy desperation I don't see us picking ourselves up again to even think about clean metals industries.
Given that aluminium has been called solidified electricity you are probably right.If Australia is to retain it's aluminium industry,and I think that is desireable,then base load will almost certainly have to come from nuclear.
I will no doubt get jumped on from a great height by some in TOD for this.What I am proposing is not some mad scheme to build nuclear reactors all over Australia.I envisage something like this -
(1)Getting a research effort up and running immediately to decide on the best and safest technology available.
(2)Constructing at least one reactor using that technology where it can feed an established aluminium smelter.Gladstone springs to mind.This gets the existing old coal fired station there off line.
(3)The reactor does not need to be close to Gladstone.Existing HVAC lines can be used or new HVDC built.
(4)Even with the best technology I think that building the reactor underground would be safer.
(5)This would be along the lines of a pilot project and should not put too great a strain on the availability of technicians.
While I support wholeheartedly a major effort,government and private being put into geothermal,solar thermal,wind,solar PV and possibly on a pilot basis,tidal.I think we need to cover all the bases,nuclear included.That way we might be able to kill the rotten coal industry sooner rather than later.
Putting a reactor near Gladstone might cut too close to the low carbon bone. Whyalla (Pt Bonython) on SA's arid coastline seems perfect since the Olympic Dam expansion 300 km inland needs a huge desal plus electricity, 690 MW apparently. So build a 1000 MW current generation reactor and send 300 MW up north. The coal connection is that BHP already sends ships to Whyalla with coking coal from eastern Australia. Pt Bonython has an LNG export terminal but the gas is running out.
CSP with storage still works out cheaper than nuclear when decommissioning costs are included (and without all the externalities).
Electrons are electrons - it matters not where they come from - coal, solar, wind or nuclear.
This constant nuclear advocacy is laughable - prove nuclear is cheaper than CSP and will remain so for the next 5 decades, and that you can solve the waste issue. Then you might have a topic worth discussing.
As it is you just keep making an incorrect asserton (again and again and again and again).
Yawn.
Nuclear is a dead end. Forget it.
OTOH I'd still prefer to live next to a nuclear reactor than a sequestered co2 storage area :-l
Maybe so - but I'd prefer some CSP plants in the desert, some wind plants along the southern coastline and on the ridges, some wave and tidal power plants along the coasts and some geothermal plants wherever the rocks are hot (like the Hunter Valley). Add HVDC links, pumped hydro storage and some decent grid management and your have the best option...
Aluminium smelting will work fine from wind and solar. They don't need baseload power at all.
As long as you have power back within a day (maybe two at a pinch) you don't really lose anything. I think you'll find most of the smelters at the moment have long-term contracts where they buy really cheap power but in an emergency the power company can ring up and say "turn off now!" if there's a production problem. There are usually clauses for how much a particular delay costs.
And they don't need particularly consistent power -- you can vary the rate of raw material input to match what you've got available.
Actually, we really, really want lots of this sort of load if we progress to 100% renewables because they give such flexibility in demand-side management.
This is from the International Aluminium Assn
You really have to drop this "renewables are unreliable" nonsense, Boof. it's been explained to you time and again that with enough backup generation and proper grid management this isn't any more of an issue than intermittency with fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear electricity generation.
There's no reason to continue posting things which have been shown to be wrong unless you're a netvocate.
Oh dear I fear am being shouted down. Will this apply to everybody else who expresses misgivings about over-reliance on renewables? Perhaps you could give examples of places that have mining and metals industries that are fully run on renewables.
Your aren't being shouted down - you just keep repeating the same nonsense and we keep telling you it is incorrect, which you completely ignore.
You've had the baseload fallacy" explained a million times, yet you persist in trying to spread it.
You constantly ignore the fact that large scale renewables exist and are cheaper than nuclear power, which you nevertheless advocate on almost every thread here.
You simply ignore that fact that geographical distribution, type of renewable variety and energy storage solve the one problem you raise.
If you won't try and come up with a detailed, coherent argument, don't expect any kid glove treatment.
Boof,
You are both right, aluminium smelting can only do without power for a few hours(say 4), but thats plenty of time to start up back-up power. Other processes depend on minute by minute load balancing for example domestic power, so having 10% of Australia's electricity production being used for aluminium smelting gives a cushion(if connected to grid). I don't know , but suspect the smelters could go much longer on reduced power, but in any case peak loads usually only last for an hour or two.
The bigger problem with wind is using the power if it is generated at maximum capacity during the lowest off-peak period( 3-5am) but wind is usually lighter at those times.
Re: aluminium smelters with renewables:
http://www.alcoa.com/iceland/en/news/releases/north_iceland_smelter.asp
http://www.alcoa.com/iceland/en/news/releases/greenland_smelter.asp
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/10/congealed-electricity.html
Gav, Don't forget our Kiwi friends...
http://www.nzte.govt.nz/section/14606/16261.aspx
Also, just in case some people are unaware, the South Eastern Australian states already operate a significant power storage scheme - It's called the Snowy Hydro. It pumps water uphill during the night using baseload power and then runs it through the hydro turbines during the day to add to peak production.
http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/hydro/large.html
While I'd be willing to bet that there should be more efficient onsite power storage solutions available today (avoiding the transmission and pumping losses) there's nothing to stop us *today* hooking up Solar, Wind, Wave etc., renewables to our existing grid and using Snowy as the "storage".
Keep in mind that when the current grid was being constructed it was also what we would consider "unreliable" by today's standards.
There are going to be growing pains, sure, let's accept it, stop dwelling on it, and get going.
Mash
This is from the International Aluminium Assn...
I think you'll find that smelters get cut off whenever there is a serious supply shortfall, like a large coal fired plant suddenly tripping.
So long as they get restarted in less than an hour things are fine. Any longer than that and things solidify and you have an expensive mess to clean up.
That means on your mythical once in a hundred year event that the whole country is covered in clouds and the wind isn't blowing anywhere and the dams are empty and the tides are between shifts and there are no waves we have half an hour to get some backup gas (hopefully biogas) fired power online...
Putting the "boom" into the Mining Boom, eh Boof?
;-)
But I don't think explosive costs are a huge proportion of mining costs. One example, Newmont Mining apparently spends about $70M pa on explosives... (http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page67?oid=55175&sn=Detail),
...and has revenues approaching $8B per year...
http://ir.newmont.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=66018&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=113445....
So we're in the 1% range for the explosive component of mineral costs. If that becomes 2, 4 or even 8%, I don't think the cost of explosives will be de-fusing the "Boom" any time soon...
;-)
BTW Did anyone see the 730 Report last night?
Yeah I saw that. Poor bastards. I feel really sorry for their ignorant arses. Seriously I do. It's no fun working to go broke and not having anyway out of the situation.
Waht worries me more is the sign off from Kerry O'Brien "God help the truckies". This is a much bigger problem for the rest of us if a significant number of truckies were to be forced out.
You have put some interesting stuff on Peak Energy,Gav.
Putting dams on the Amazon seems like at least the second worst idea that the Brazilians have come up with.The worst is the continuing clearance of the Amazon rainforest.Maybe the recent eminent visitor to these shores could have a word to them about birth control to reduce the pressure on their resources.Yeh,sure.
The piece on hybrid buses I assume are diesel buses using overhead electricity where appropriate.
I remember trolley buses in Brisbane when the old trams were still in place.As I was a kid at the time I don't know whether they had ICE as well.
All that infrastructure was destroyed when the Labour council under Clem Jones imported a US traffic engineer,Wilbur Smith,who advised scrapping the trams,extending diesel bus services and building freeways into the CBD.A bit like what happened in Los Angeles I believe. We have that monumental eyesore,the Riverside Expressway as a result.
Now the idiots want to hide this behind a gigantic building extending out into the river.A lot of opposition to this,thankfully.
Clem Jones (recently deceased)was a decent bloke,just not far sighted enough I guess.Common problem.
The Brazilians will be one of the countries effected most by climate change with their massive lack of future planning. Tim Flannery had some excellent point to make in The Weathermakers about the rainfall in the Brazilian tropical forests specifically how the forest creates the rain in the region due to moisture escaping from the plant life. I would be interested in seeing an actual analysis on the climatic ramifications of a hydroelectric scheme in the Amazon. For instance what would be the net affect of losing vegetation with respect to CO2 levels? How much methane will the flooded area produce? What are the ramifications of this to the microclimate and precipitation levels? Etc etc... The net effect on the preciptation in the area may be calamitous or it may be fortuitous.
FYI, The dissappearance of the trams in Brisbane had a lot to do with the massive fire in the tram yard at Paddington whcih destroyed about 20% of the fleet not just Clem Jones's pro-car ideology. I am a big Clem fan so I won't say too many bad things about the man. For the most part he got it right more than he got it wrong. Also as far as I am aware our reigning idiot Premier Bjelke-Petersen et al had a lot to do with the whole Riverside Expressway stupidity.
For years I have had an idea that the whole RE should be torn down and the access to the CBD roads be converted into 'shared streets' to force down the rampant and hedonistic automobile use in the city.
Brisbane is the city in Australia, I think, which typifies the 'lucky country' premise - too much resource wealth and not enough scarcity of resources to force people into thinking about things. All we seem to be these days is a 'coal republic'. All hail the mighty black rock...
You have put some interesting stuff on Peak Energy,Gav
Thanks. I try to make it as interesting and forward looking as possible. One of the great things about TOD ANZ is that it lets me blog all the day to day news down under and let PE be more clearly global in orientation.
Re the hybrid buses in Maryland, the article doens't say what type they are, but most hybrid buses seem to be much like hybrid cars - electric motor powered by an on-board battery, not by overhead power lines (though I have seen those too).
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_2906/article.html
http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/enews/mercedes-benz/Mercedes-Benz-Hybrid-Bu...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6154346-7.html
http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-transit-buses.html
Trams are obviously a good option to restore as well, but there is much less infrastructure spend in converting to a hybrid bus fleet, so I imagine that will be the more frequently chosen option for public transport in the coming years.
Agriculture not transport issues are the big problems that have to be solved.
If analysis of the aviation industry is correct and the future of the industry is dire already, while we are just at the foorhills of peak oil, I don't think I could be more thrilled. A contraction in the airline industry is perfect and exactly what we need. Planes are noisy, dangerous, polluting vessels and the less of them the better. Nobody needs them or the goods they transport from far away, just as we don't need to own a car. We will work things out without planes and cars. Instead making food with less oil will become the real issue.
Reading some of his comments, I sometimes wonder if Big Gav understands that all energy sources are currently floating on an subsidy provided by cheap fossil fuels. Are the alternatives really going to be cheap or even available when widespread oil shortages occur?
You are correct about making food with less oil.A lot of agricultural machinery can be converted to run on LNG as can the road transport needed to get it from farm to market.Natural gas is also used to make nitrogenous fertilizer.Phosphate is a huge input to agriculture and is mined using oil.
Maybe there can be more organic methods used to produce food but the yields will be smaller and there is a time lag between a farmer adopting organic methods and getting satisfactory results.
There doesn't seem to be much consciousness of the immanent problems in Australian food production.
The attitude seems to be,well we have fed ourselves and exported food for 150 years so we can just go on doing that.I'm not so sure when the above factors are considered and adding land degradation,increased domestic population and climate change possibly worsening already iffy rainfall patterns.
Re planes and cars - Unless we go into meltdown mode we will still need air transport to some extent but certainly not on the present wasteful scale.Australia is a vast country with a long way between waterholes.We are still going to need road transport but again not on the same scale as at present.
Many urban trips can be reduced or eliminated.Heavy long distance road transport should be able to be reduced if we get an electrified rail network up and running.However,rural areas(food producing)
are dependent on road transport and there is no viable alternative.
Most problems have solutions,including all of the above.We need to get started on figuring them out and actually DOING IT.
[edit] nothing to see here citizens, move along. -mash
I sometimes wonder if Big Gav understands that all energy sources are currently floating on an subsidy provided by cheap fossil fuels. Are the alternatives really going to be cheap or even available when widespread oil shortages occur.
I've been blogging about peak oil for over 4 years - almost every day - from back when it was very much a fringe meme. I've read a reasonably large percentage of all commentary written on the subject over that time, and I think I've got a good understanding of all the various schools of thought.
So, yes, I think I understand all the issues surrounding peak oil in particular and resource scarcity in general.
However, because I've spent so much time studying the issue, I'm categorically not a doomer. I don't believe there will be significant energy shortages, as opposed to oil shortages, in the long term (in fact, I think there is more than enough energy to meet all our needs), just that there are large adjustments to make - to our transport systems primarily, but also to our buildings, our urban design and our manufacturing systems.
Large scale wind and CSP power have an EROEI in the 20-50 range. Wind has a total potential of 10 times our current energy usage, solar more than 10,000 times. That is more than enough to base industrial civilisation on - and more than enough for them to be "cheap".
Some countries / regions/ organisations / individuals will adapt better than others of course - this will mostly be a matter of planning and attitude. Those that have a rough time of it have only themselves to blame (or their leaders, in the case of those people who don't have the individual resources to adapt on their own).
The best thing about this enforced transition is that we'll eventually end up with a cleaner, better base providing our energy needs than we currently have.
Qantas says all that, and yet on their homepage we still see Melbourne-Adelaide one way for $85, Melbourne-Auckland $239. A few other airlines are still offering $1 or $20 fares, like Singapore-Bangkok, and Qantas' offers aren't in that range, but still... these are fares we saw five years ago with fuel one-fifth the price.
Time for a quick holiday while it lasts!
;-)
http://hitch14.tripod.com/chapter_31.htm
Just to show that qualifications and employment status don't necessarily reflect reasoning skills...
I wonder if that was the ridiculous and discredited USGS report?
He also appears to believe that oil reservoirs are tanks that can be pumped dry...
It's the old confusion between reserves size and production rate. By which reasoning, we don't have to worry about oil supplies for 1,000 years because hey look Titan around Saturn is a big splodge of hydrocarbons.
Just cos it's there don't mean we can get at it easily.
Besides which, all he is saying is that the peak will be 65 years from now. We'll continue producing (say) 80 million barrels of oil a day until 23rd July, 2008, and then on 24th July, 2008 we'll produce zero. So he's saying that peak oil is real, it's just that instead of a hill we have a flat plain ending in a vertical cliff. Well, yay.
Well he does give talks. Maybe we should invite him to a live web forum to debate his views and justify them. Hey I'd like to be convinced that Peak Oil is a myth.
http://www.csiro.au/people/Peter.McCabe.html
or better still send him an email direct Peter.McCabe@csiro.au
Well, I guess his current job (see link above) does kinda rely on him being able to convince people that there are "vast" quantities of the stuff left to find and that he is JUST the "expert" to do it!
Mind you, on the off chance that he is right (doubtful), the planet may be truly stuffed climate wise.
I wonder if he has recalibrated his thinking since he published this article
Heh, heh :-)
I love the way the internet allows the track record of these guys to be quickly and easily researched.
Don't bet money on what this guy says...
Let's be careeristicaly clear, and I kinda (not really) wish I was in his position. It's "the bottom of the ninth" (he is a North American import) and your early career is marked by a decent publishing record, but your later is more to do with your high membership of several professional bodies.
An "august" Austral institution rubs your member... my back , your back - scratch (or pull).
Probably not a bad gig in an era of declining US$ purchasing power.
(Disclosure: one day soon I will complete my PhD (and officially become an "expert") and I have worked for the CSIRO)
Apart from his facial hair he resembles his boss, there's a theory about this.
I think you can guess that I think that this fella is an outdated wanker appointed more becuase of his associations then any ability he once had.
As an aside, and as I have said previously, even though it is usually easy to track these fellas down, it surprises me how few make the effort.
The Howard government knackered the CSIRO by cutting funding and making them dependent on private sponsorship.The research(and opinions) goes where the money is.
KRudd&Co haven't reversed this funding shortfall.
There is also the issue of "unsackable" institutionalised committee junkies (average age 50+) who don't actually "do" much "work". It's just too expensive to "release" these people. The newly employed younger generation is faced with the "comfort" of short term contracts... never mind the Superannuation largesse that their superiors have.
For those interested, here is a complete analysis (pdf, 188 pages) of the Martin Durkin film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that details all the manipulations and distortions and also Mr Durkins previous crappy output and associations.