 | The Bullroarer - Monday 23 June 2008 | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | Short shrift for the Long Paddock |  |
85 comments on Australia’s Oil-Based Energy Security
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
85 comments on Australia’s Oil-Based Energy Security
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
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
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Well, detailed but isn't this a bit too prescriptive?
I'll restrict my comments to the Demand section.
From your table... there are two stand out offenders; Road Transport (personal) and Road Transport (Goods) which you focus on. I agree (strongly) that these two areas need to see the most reductions, and that Government intervention may/will help speed this, and support your call for tariffs etc on this front... but to extend that (as implied in your table) to other industries that
1/ make up smaller percentage contributions and
2/ are going to respond anyway...
Well, do we need that many Govt. interventions?
And where are you going to put the goods no longer moved by truck if you also want to reduce the rail fuel use by 40%?
Surely, the first step is to transition away from trucking (hooray) to rail, which may see a marginal increase in rail fuel use. A side benefit must be the decreased maintenance of road infrastructure, which could be put towards upgrading the rail network... thus possibly leading to lower consumption there.
Your biofuel advocacy, on the other hand has a hint of maintaining BAU to it.
Maybe, apart from climate change, a lot of that area is not suitable.
Please, I will repeat this again. Australia generally has poor soils. We grow a lot of what we do by applying PNK and H2O. Now sugar at least has the property that you are ultimately just exporting C, H and O (ie starch, and the ingredients are CO2 and H2O) but to expand your growing area you are going to have to displace other production... OR bring new areas under production... see the beginning of this paragraph. It is not by choice that our farmers use a lot of area, using a lot of oil to produce what they do. Our yields per area are a lot lower than elsewhere... even if our yield per worker is higher.
As Gav points out (frequently ;-) ) our large areas of high sunshine non arable land may have other uses.
True. Phoenix and I discussed the prescriptive nature of this post. We agreed that, if we want to prove that it is possible we need to provide specific numbers. These numbers are open to change - they simply form a concrete starting point for demonstrating what is possible.
If I was taking on this problem as a professional engagement, this would be my first step in developing a "Findings and Recommendations".
Electrified rail. I discuss it in previous posts, and we will discuss it in the next post. It wasn't specifically discussed in this post, because we are talking about road transport here, but our underlying assumption is electrification of significant sections of the rail system. Apologies if this assumption was not made explicit.
If exporting sugar becomes marginal, then we will have to find some other use for it. There are other factors that we have considered in this area, but they will be discussed in future posts.
A lot of what gets manufactured and transported is useless junk. My son does not need a plastic McDonalds Happy Meal toy - in fact he doesn't neeed ANY new toys, he only plays with 20% of what he has. Likewise, our house does not need any more toasters (we have 2), kettles (3), TVs (2), CD players (3), etc, etc, etc.
However I don't think we are suggesting that government intervention will be needed. Government planning yes. Government education yes. But this problem is likely to take care of itself if fuel continues at $130+ per barrel.
However, having said that, these goals are not set in stone - we are using them as a vehicle to demonstrate what might be done.
If these goals were achieved our reliance on foreign oil would be cut to 0 and we would be ahead of the depletion curve for long enough to make a transition to renewables.
aeldric.
PS
The problems we will experience and the subsequent solutions to those problems will sort themselves out. Market forces will eventually drive us to use of renewables etc. without government intervention. The problem with this approach, is the transition.
The infrastructure and societal changes necessary to effectively deal with an oil depleted society will take many, many years to put in place. In the meantime our economy and general population will go through hell. Government intervention is desirable to avoid this to the maximum extent possible.
Well I for one don't mind "prescriptive", if it gets Oz to oil independence in five years! ;-)
Bring on "The Prescription", Doctor!
(Do you think it's available for our Federal Politicians in suppository form?)
Agreed, its really refreshing seeing a potential transition addressed in a series of positive steps/actions like this.
To me, waiting for the market to fix things is a lazy "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" way of thinking. The markets react, they don't anticipate. Waiting until the oil crunch forces us to look for alternatives is no good if the alternatives need years to put in place - the preparation work needs to be done now.
Quite a few relatives have dismissed the whole Peak Oil thing because its too depressing to contemplate, something which is exacerbated by the fact that so many websites delight in pointing out all the problems & end by concluding that TEOTW is coming - I'll be trying to get them to read this :)
It'd be really nice to see this article published more widely than on a site that only peakniks are likely to visit...
Agree also, this style of presentation is exactly what is needed, great work aeldric et al.
I'm no "free market" advocate... but you have to propose something that's going to bring the majority of people with you... and the current economic story with credence (deserved or not) is "the market" as told by our current crop of economists and commentators in the media (and think tanks). So a little pandering to it wont hurt.
Simply, I suggest focusing on the two transport issues identified.
The rest is "distraction" at this stage.
There is enough detail there to chew over for a 50% cut in fuel use... without regulating elsewhere.
The more grand the plan becomes, the more likely errors are and less likely you are to carry people with you.
In a nut shell - focus.
Phoenix I presume you are following the share market falls and the effect it is having on superannuation - this is a response to our oil situation - high prices with little to no growth in quantum. This trend will continue and will increase when shareholders realise that every endeavour has a key need for petroleum - therefore most enterprises have no long term value...
If we are to maintain some sort of material society then we need prescriptive solutions.
CNG may be OK for private transport but for the long hauls they can't carry enough.
We need to have diesel / electric trucks that use overhead electricity directly between cities. There is a push to put all trucking on the New England route and so it would be the obvious choice to electrify. The costs are high but a 10 cents per kilometre charge should pay for it in spades.
You mean... trains?
Trains - No...Trucks but like Trolley buses... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus
You would use a rail quality delivery system as the load would be very great over the entire line - say 2000 units per day - B Triples would be the preferred size - greater energy efficiency...
We have a great road infrastructure and a culture of trucking and not a lot of rail lines that go places.
The cost of rennovating the Great Northern line is prohibitive as all new rails and sleepers are required, and you are still up for the electrification....
It would be sensible to link the rail system to this system by using the road rail trailers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadrailer
I am having a break from full time work starting next week and will endeavour to contract all the New England Shires to get support.. grass roots as it will be called.. experts out there who are willing to help leave a personal message Sololeum at Sydney Peak Oil...
The cost of rennovating the Great Northern line is prohibitive as all new rails and sleepers are required, and you are still up for the electrification....
The damage to the road bed is roughly proportional to the 4th power of the axle load.
Trolley buses require two wires, not one wire as with rail (the rail serves as the return).
Trolley buses use about 5x as much electricity/passenger as a small tram. The flexing sidewalls of those rubber tires and much greater co-efficient of friction.
The life time cost of maintaining roads for heavy trucks is substantially higher than rail (for rail replace every 50 years or so for moderately heavy use) and operating costs should be higher as well.
Alan
Strongly agree. That is why I discuss CNG for small mini-busses and "the existing personal car fleet" but do not discuss it for long-haul trucks. The majority of oil is burned in personal vehicles, so converting them to CNG would be enough.
aeldric, I think that CNG converson is thrown around here a little too flippantly as if it is already something you can just drop the car into the shop tomorrow and just get it done. My investigations for converting a standard Commodore to CNG has shown that it is not yet avaialable off the shelf and there is a rigourous certification regime required for each engine type that is put up for conversion. This is a costly exercise and just not economic for the individual to undertake. LPG is still the only real gas option for cars.
This is correct - it is still early days for CNG. So we better get off our butts and get a bunch of cars certified. The current driver for certification for a type of car is commercial fleet owners, who decide to get a fleet of cars converted.
Mangaing a fleet of commercial vehicles is not that straight forward. Most companies large or small will have a variety of vehicles at differnt ages and differnt qulity of vehicles for differen level of employee. There would be very few comapnies that say buy 20,000 Commodores or Falcons on 1 July 2008 and then turn all of them over in three years time.
It will take GMH and Ford to produce a factory fitted CNG car which fleet owners then have an option to take up. The government will have to roll out the filling infrastructure which will be very different to the current modes of fuel delivery. It could be done but it will ahve to be pushed by government. I just don't see anyone else that could clear the obstacls from the path and or lean on people who need to change their attitude. The government itself could simply act in the market by refusing to buy anything but CNG for ordinary passenger cars and that would soon get the attention of the car companies.
Thanks Aeldric for your presentation,
I think you are asking for a large number of actions, some will be very difficult to implement. I would agree that personal travel and road transport are areas where large savings are possible, and probably should be tackled as the highest priority.
Experience in US in late 1970's shows that vehicle miles traveled(VMT)is very difficult to change long term, especially as we have a growing population and an expanding suburbia. It's doubtful that in the next 5 years big movements of work commuting from cars to mass-transit will occur because;1)existing rail and bus are crowded at peak hours 2)many suburbs are not close to rail or work locations are not close to rail. Furthermore, 70% of travel is not work-related(for shopping, other activities) even less suitable for mass-transit. In time, a massively expanded rail system connecting major shopping, sports areas and going across cities would help but this will take 20-50 years. I suspect that moving commercial interstate road transport to rail could be done quickly but there is the problem of within-city road transport requiring new rail infrastructure.
Improvements in fuel efficiency and replacing petrol with CNG seems likely to have an immediate impact in reducing oil use or petrol imports.If all of the 1 million new passenger and light trucks sold in Australia each year(7% of total) were either PHEV, or duel CNG/petrol, could probably reduce commercial and private fuel use by 6-8%, translating into a 3-4% reduction in total oil use per year.
Legislative regulations could mandate 10% of vehicles having the poorest fuel economy to be duel CNG/petrol, and raise this until all new vehicles were either duel/petrol or PHEV. This would allow time for CNG infrastructure to be expanded. Existing LNG installation subsidies could be expanded to cover some of the costs and encourage retro-fitting of older vehicles. The advantages of having duel petrol/EV or petrol/CNG, is that vehicles will still have flexibility for inter-city travel and in locations not supplied by NG. Smaller CNG tanks( for say 60km range) would be less expensive to install and require less space. If petrol supplies really become critical, these vehicles would still be able to run even if re-fueling was tedious.
If post peak oil results in >3-4% per annum reductions in oil availability, especially petrol imports, I cannot see any other alternative than petrol rationing, by either price, allocation, or a combination of both. Only if this happens, will it be possible to really reduce VMT and start building and paying for the expansion of mass transit infrastructure.
One mass transit infrastructure that might quickly reduce VMT(even if limited), would be to re-introduce or expand the electric tram infrastructure along existing roads(or parking lanes), to interlink or extend within-city rail transport. Trams seemed to work for users in Sydney, it was the private motor vehicle users who drove them off the streets, or possibly traffic jams?
Aeldric, I agree with most of what you say BUT- You have 2 toasters (as do I) etc in the consumerist society in which we live. The only way to reduce fuel/energy/junk consumption IS by government intervention.
Think of rationing in WW2. People had ration books so everybody had their needs(not wants) met without the richest buying everything. Today the government needs to intervene to give Carbon Ration Books with coupons for fuel, power and consumer items.
If government intervention meant our toaster imports were regulated to ensure that they were well built rather than cheap Chinese cr*p then the expensive, well constructed toaster would be more desirable than the cr*p because BOTH would cost a rationed carbon coupon and you wouldn't think of buying that $10 toaster on special as a spare.
Neal
Your comments sound a bit like you are advocating communism. While nice in theory the ultimate result is the LADA motorcar.
We have tried to keep the actions to things that are practical and achievable within the current political landscape of the next 5 years. Even so, they will be a very difficult sell to a public that still expect that problems will be fixed without any loss of convenience. With luck, the current pain being felt by the public will promt an increased awareness which in turn will provide courage to the politicians. Many of them, do in fact understand the problem and the implications. Unfortunately, talk of such changes as are necessary is viewed as heresy to the growth doctrine. It all has to start with public awareness.
Hi Phoenix
Your opening comments appear to be deriding both Communism and the LADA motorcar. Taking the second innuendo first, I would like to point out that the Lada is essentially the Fiat 125, built using the same dies that Fiat onsold after changing their designs.
I am sure that you are aware that an Italian motorvehicle manufacturer such as Fiat could never produce a quality car (sarcanol off).
Regarding "Communism", I am not aware that it has ever been tried as a form of Government for a large number of people. The so-called communist states, such as USSR, China , North Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, etc have all been command economies with a small elite and a vast peasantry. The only true Communist entities have been small, usually religious, groups that have existed within, and partially separate from, the over-riding state infrastructure.
I personally would like to see an economy where the 1600cc motor LADA (Fiat 125) car was the norm, and the principal of "To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability" was the basic principle of the economy. It sure as hell would beat the mashete moshpit on the near horizon.
CHeers
Merv
No, it wasn't commumism when Churchill did it and it wouldn't be communism now. As Joe Public won't cut back on his consumption patterns voluntarily then prices rise (like petrol is now) forcing out the poor while those in Mcmansions have the cash to outbid them for free market fuel, junk and carbon credits.
All rationing does is restrict the size of the usage pie and means those with the money can only get access to extra fuel or whatever by paying to buy the coupons and credits of those of use who are really willing to cut our usage back.
That means that you and I get a nice extra source of income when we ride our bikes when the V8 idiots buy our coupons.
Capitalistic carrot and stick that encourages conservation.
I've been driven into by a Lada. Nearly totaled my car, but the Lada only had paint scratches on the bumper. Ugly cars, but built well.
Neal, I disagree slightly from my esteemed co-author - I don't think you are a commie ;-) , in fact I hope you are right. But as Phoenix says, I don't think it will happen in 5 years - maybe in 10?
Hi Neal, I wholeheartedly agree that rationing is needed, whether the binding constraint is emissions (climate change) or energy availability (peak oil). However, I would argue it makes more sense to operate an electronic system than a paper coupon system these days.
The TEQs system is being seriously examined here in the UK, and interestingly the other country with serious advocacy for TEQs is Australia.
I'd be interested to know what you make of it.
I agree with your electronic system rather than paper coupons. Whatever system that is used will be better than the current "I can pay the market price so F**K my neighbour". That I see in so many people.
A fair rationing system will also promote the public mindedness and common purpose that the wartime public had.
The future need not be a moshpit or even painful. IIRC the war years with their belt tightening actually improved peoples lives (even suicides dropped).
A litle self sacrifice in a common purpose makes people feel virtuous.
neal,
Are your 2 toasters both on all the time?, or is toaster electricity consumption a function of how many slices of toast are eaten per week?
Same for TV sets or cars, you can only watch or drive one at a time!
Price is a great way of rationing worth when choices are available, for example different sources of energy( oil vs coal). High prices of oil allow "price rationing" of oil for valuable uses( transport), keeping coal for less valuable electricity generation( because alternatives are available). If we start to have no oil except at very high prices( we are not there yet), then rationing based on priority of use will have to be introduced.
How many people in US or Australia cannot afford to drive a low cost, small, fuel-efficient car for just essential trips( work, shopping once a week) and have no public transport options? While $1.70 a litre petrol is the issue of the day in Australia( $6.50 a gallon), whats really hurting financially are increases in rents and mortgage payments( last years issues). Most of us still have choices, its just that we still choose to drive, look at the week-end traffic jams.
Can't say I agree with this. Rationing by price just means the richest get whatever's in short supply. And bear in mind that oil is traded globally.
Unfortunately, markets do not distinguish between more and less essential uses of oil – if we in the UK are willing and able to pay more to run our cars than people elsewhere are able to pay to heat their homes or power their hospitals then the limited supply of oil will flow here. Demand destruction can be very cruel or even fatal for those whose demand is ‘destroyed’.
According to the UN:
And that was written in early 2007, when oil prices stood at $60.
The point is, guaranteed minimum entitlements to energy (not price-based distribution) are already desperately required in many places around the world, and peak oil means that actual shortages will be many and widespread. And a well thought-through rationing system takes time to set up. As ever, waiting for market signals to tell us its time to implement such a scheme means leaving it too late.
"The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed" - William Gibson