 | The Bullroarer - Friday 26th June 2009 | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Friday 3rd July 2009 |  |
42 comments on The Trouble With Energy - Part 4
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
42 comments on The Trouble With Energy - Part 4
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
Neil
I agree with the development of PHEVs and EVs, however their are two problems:
- It is highly unlikely that the development and production of these vehicles will occur at an appropriate rate to address a rapid shortfall in oil availability. Whereas we could , with the right incentives, rapidly retrofit a large proportion of the existing vehicle fleet with CNG capability.
- EV technology is not at the point where it can be effectively used for heavy goods transport or for applications such as mining and agriculture machinery. Some of this demand could be replaced using electric alternatives (rail, conveyors etc.), but again this will take many years to put in place.
We recognise the political difficulties associated with "locking up" our energy resources from a world that is militarily much stronger than us. We need to play the issue very carefully. The greatest advantage we can generate is to leave as many options open as possible.
I understand your point on the RET. The trouble is that successive governments have used fixed RET numbers to hoodwink the public into believing the target was considerably higher than it is. The current 45,000 GWhr target was sold to the public on the basis that it was 20% of consumption. The reality is that (in a BAU scenario) by 2020 it will represent probably only about 15%. This is not only confined to the current government as the previous administration indulged in the same trick. So in reality after 20 years of the scheme being in place we will have increased our renewables proportion from 9% to 15%. Not exactly the fantastic result being claimed by the politicians. Maybe the answer is to set the target as "the larger of" set quantity or percentage.
The issue of local industry is a difficult one. It seems that Australian participation is decreasing rather than increasing. Unfortunately, the situation is likely to get even worse in the near future with the introduction of Chinese made turbines into the market. Although I am generally against tariffs to protect uncompetitive industries it may be that a period of tariff protection is the best solution to allow the industry to get effectively started.
phoenix,
PHEV and EV's don't have to replace all ICE applications they only have to replace the oil shortfall. We don't know what this is going to be, but can assume the price of oil will be over $150/boe, or at least $AUD 2/L in Australia. This alone should stimulate some conservation and a longer term improvement of ICE vehicle fuel economy.
If the decline in oil is fairly rapid, retrofitting CNG will be a good stop-gap measure, as will retrofitting vehicles such as the Prius to be plug-in until more PHEV or EV's are sold. After that a shortfall will mean higher prices or petrol/diesel rationing or both. Rationing at say 50% of the average consumption will buy a lot of time, will ensure PHEV and EV are sold out, and won't be too draconian. Many people will be able to use a lot less than this and sell unused coupons to those who really need a vehicle or cannot car pool or use mass transit. There are many older high mileage fuel efficient vehicles that can be kept running with a little higher repair costs. On the other hand, rationing will send the older Commodores and other gas guzzlers to the wreckers long before they wear out.
Even if some or most turbines are imported local manufacture of foundations, and towers should be cost competitive, and in 20-25 years the turbines will need replacing or local overhaul so opportunities will arise for a vigorous local industry. The rapid expansion in China will ensure many opportunities in many smaller manufacturing countries to compete in local manufacture.These are still not mass production items that benefit from the scale available in the auto industry, although some components may be. While we can build and repair cars locally we should be able to build and repair wind turbines or solar CSP.
And then you can add the farce that is the new Solar Credit program (your Solar PV system is 'worth', say, 30 RECs, but under the SC program you now get 150 RECs. All of these RECs (including the phantom ones) count towards the MRET equally).