 | 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
- March 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
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.