I'm not familiar with the specifics of Australian energy consumption, but if it is at all similar to the US situation oil only accounts for about 40% of the total.  Coal is a large fraction of the remainder, and isn't going to follow the same decline curve.  Utilities like electricity will not be strongly affected until the coal supply is impaired, and the large diesels used for trains and mining trucks can be converted to burn coal slurry if things get that bad.

Transport is the segment most dependent upon oil, but there may be ways for the system to become more elastic.  One way is for people to add small electric power packs to existing bicycles.  Electric scooters require more manufacturing effort than a bicycle conversion, but should be far less intensive than making a car.  The off-peak charging requirements of a 1 kWh scooter battery are on the order of 100 watts overnight; this much power could be recovered by replacement of a few incandescent bulbs with fluorescents or LEDs.

Electric supply remains crucial.  However, when someone's daily transport energy requirements can be met by the output of a few hundred dollar's worth of PV panels which are good for upwards of 30 years, this problem looks like it may shrink rapidly.  Ideally, public policy would get this trend started immediately (free parking and charging for electric bikes and scooters, install a few hundred watts of PV per capita) so that there is a base resource available to respond to unforeseen events.

You may be unfamiliar with the fact that the "few hundred dollars worth of PV panels" you refer to don't work "overnight" and, even if you work the night shift, wouldn't get you very far, (unless, of course you, were good a pumping your scooter with your free foot against the pavement).

It would also be helpful if you were going downhill.

You may be unfamiliar with the fact that the "few hundred dollars worth of PV panels" you refer to don't work "overnight"

You may be unfamiliar with the fact that most workplaces have things called "electric outlets" which operate both day and night, and there is this wonderful invention called "the grid" which transports electricity from place to place.  Besides, if fuel availability or carbon emissions are the primary constraint, it doesn't particularly matter when you generate the power (although near peak hours is obviously the best for other reasons).  If you can schedule the scooters to charge in the morning when the PV is ramping up but before the afternoon demand peak, you re-shape both the production and demand curves in favorable directions.

That grid thing really is pretty cool.

Not that it couldn't do with a few improvements - feel like doing a joint post on smart grids with me ?

It would be nice to have something to point people at when these discussions erupt...

If you lost my e-mail, it's still on the old blog.

Edit:  Posts move off the main page and out of sight too fast.  What we really need for this stuff is a Wiki.  We could edit the Wikipedia page (there's even a plea to do so), but there's no assurance that the changes would stick.

Using the figures from 2003-4 at the ABS, we see that
+15,690PJ is produced in Australia
+1,295PJ is imported (mostly sweet crude oil refined products)
-11,759PJ is exported (uranium and black coal, and our own sour crude unrefined)

leaving 5,346PJ to use domestically, of which
-1,035PJ is used directly
-4,311PJ is converted into some other form (coal into electricity, refined oil products into plastics, etc)

Of those 4,311PJ converted,
1,801PJ are lost in the conversion, transmission and distribution processes,
giving 2,510PJ of products

and thus 3,545PJ of actual end use of primary and derived energy.

Now looking at this, we see that of 2,875.1PJ used in 2001 (earlier year than above, thus lower energy consumption), the forms it was used in finally were,
Petroleum products, 53.2%
Biofuels, under 1%
Natural and town gas, 22.6%
Electricity, 24%
Solar, under 1% (they mean solar hot water heaters)

Note however that "electricity" is not an energy source, but an energy carrier. Its source in Australia is overwhelmingly from coal, as noted here; about 50% of electricity comes from black coal, 31% from brown coal, and 10.6% from natural gas; the remainder of 8.4% is renewable, mostly hydro. So we can rearrange the table above like so,

Petroleum products, 53.2%
Biofuels, under 1%
Natural and town gas, 25%
Black & brown coal, 19.4%
Hydro &c, 2%
Solar, under 1%

Note however that the petroleum products are used overwhelmingly for transport. Of 1,530PJ of the energy got from petroleum products, 1,166.4PJ were used in road, rail, air or water-borne transport. They used only 8.4PJ of other kinds of energy.

Transport enables most of the other forms of energy consumption and production. It's hard to imagine mining, agriculture, or even construction without transport.

You're quite right that personal transport faces few technical difficulties; but it faces many psychological and social difficulties. Your average accountant or labourer is not going to hop on an electric scooter if they have any choice.

There are other technical issues, though. If we want to give up oil and replace it with electrical things, then we have to give up coal and gas, too. That's because electrical transport would be an extra burden on the power grid, and our power comes from coal, gas and hydro. Even if we assume that coal and gas are infinite, climate change effects will continue to give Australia a water shortage, which is already impacting power generation.

So, turning to electrical transport means we'd have to expand renewable energy. I'm quite happy about that, I'm just pointing it out as an issue. "Just add power packs to your bikes!" sounds simple, but is less simple when we say, "oh and build more wind turbines."

Let's also not forget freighting, the non-personal transport. The key to what we call "our way of life" isn't just beign able to hop in the car to go to the shops, but also at those shops to have products from many thousand of kilometres away. Freight transport faces technical difficulties, too. Electric trucking doesn't appear to be practical as yet, though rail of course works marvellously, it's not quick to build, and faces many political difficulties despite its obvious utility.

Petroleum products, 53.2%
Biofuels, under 1%
Natural and town gas, 25%
Black & brown coal, 19.4%
Hydro &c, 2%
Solar, under 1%

You're comparing apples and watermelons there.  You are comparing the energy in electric plant output (post-conversion) with the transport system input (pre-conversion).  The inputs are compared directly in this bar graph, which shows 1552.6 PJ of input to the electrical sector for 2001-2 vs. 1265.6 for the transport sector.

Coal-fired powerplants average around 33% efficient, and vehicle engines aren't far from that (gasoline 20-25% in normal use, diesels up to 40%).  This means that the conversion losses of the electric sector are more than twice the net (not gross) energy use of the transport sector.  If the electric sector switched to a technology like direct-carbon fuel cells, it could absorb the entire energy demand of the transport sector while cutting total coal consumption.

Transport enables most of the other forms of energy consumption and production. It's hard to imagine mining, agriculture, or even construction without transport.

The heavy diesels used in mining trucks, railroad locomotives and such can be converted to burn slurried coal.  It increases the required maintenance but it has been done.

"Just add power packs to your bikes!" sounds simple, but is less simple when we say, "oh and build more wind turbines."

The energy demand of electric bikes is so small that it hardly makes sense to tie the two together.  On the other hand, the picture of the electric bike or scooter connected to a PV array can sharpen its "green" image.

Let's also not forget freighting, the non-personal transport... Electric trucking doesn't appear to be practical as yet....

I've got an office window with a view of a rail line, and among the trains which pass me several times a day there is the occasional intermodal consisting of semi-trailers on rail dollies (not flatcars).  There appears to be no technical problem preventing the use of short-haul semi-tractors powered by Zebra batteries or the like to complete the link from railhead to destination.  There are certainly destinations too far from a rail spur to be reached with such trucks, but we don't need a 100% solution even in the next 20 years; 90% will do.

You can put a coal gassifier on a locomotive pretty easily. Indonesia provides a very low sulfur and low ash coal that would be acceptable for a train. It would be annoying and inconvenient, but acceptable. Ships also have lots of ability to be retrofitted.
Depends on whether the sulfur is in sulfide minerals or in organic compounds. You can leach mineral sulfides with oxidising agents and remove the sulfide minerals that way, or grind up the coal and magnetically remove the sulfide particles.
Or just make synfuels out of high sulfur coal.

Here's a reference to an excellent article suggesting that the energy payback time on PV production is surprisingly long (decades under some scenarios).

http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/energy_profit.htm

Lots of debate about how true this is (and I suspect it is much less true with the new thin film solar that is now appearing) :

http://www.bml.csiro.au/susnetnl/netwl58E.pdf
http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/05/valuing-elegance-annoyances-and.html#com...
http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/11/energy-payback-from-photovoltaics.html
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/index.php?p=29&
(Tesla also have a good graph of EROEI for various forms of solar power in one of their presentations, but I can't find it right now)

The US DOE says that the payback period for PV is between 2 and 4 years.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

Thanks for the links.

I am picking my way through them. In doing so I came across Jeff Vail's concept of "the Price-estimated EROEI of PV" in which the energy invested is estimated by the cost of the PV and the energy return by the market selling price of the electricity produced.

I did the sums for my house and the payback time was 27 years.

PS. How do you manage to keep up with all this?

You can't use price to estimate EROEI. Price is not energy. Many things which use a lot of energy are quite cheap (eg Big Mac burgers), other things which use little or no energy are expensive (eg ocean views).

If you look at solar in terms of how long it takes to earn back the money you put into it, then solar looks very bad - but then, so does any other power source. Solar cells are just the worst of a very bad lot.

If you look at solar in terms of how long it takes to earn back the energy that was put into it, it looks pretty good.

Jeff Vail in one of the links above suggests that EROEI is a difficult number to measure and use of price is a simple approximation to the truth.

You only have to look at the wildly varying claims for the EROEI for PV (from 1 to 30+) to see how controversial the measure is. It is not easy to know who is correct

Measuring EROEI is notoriously tricky - Jeff did a few posts on the subject here at TOD too.

Cost based estimates have a lot of distorting factors, so they can be an interesting data point, but aren't the final word on the subject.

Here is another link I was searching for - see the table at the end for a comparison of different forms of PV (solar thermal - CSP - is another matter altogether - one with a much high energy payback).

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_basics.html

How do you manage to keep up with all this?

The glib answer is I don't watch TV.

In reality some of this does / has coincided with my day job (not much in my current job though) so I've got to do a lot of study on the various subjects over the years.

Running a couple of blogs on these topics helps to grind the stuff into my brain too - being told you are an idiot after publically saying something stupid from a position of pseudo-expertise does concentrate your mind somewhat.

Lastly, I get far less sleep than I need to - hence the occasional dips into incoherence...