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.
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.
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.
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.
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.