The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fossil fuels versus renewables > Comments

Fossil fuels versus renewables : Comments

By Kurt Cobb, published 25/1/2012

The key arguments that environmentalists are missing

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The answer to your question is obvious, Kurt!

The transition will be chaotic and marked by violent swings in the economy as the world lurches from one energy-induced crisis to another.
Posted by Dunc, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 7:42:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately we have become dependent on the profligate energy use created by once-cheap fossil fuels. We need coal fired electricity to power appliances including the computer you are reading this on. We need oil fuelled cars, tractors and trucks to get to work and to grow and distribute food. I haven't seen any realistic alternative plan that explains how this can be done with renewable energy. The dreamers claim that gas is a bridge to an all-renewables future but I suggest gas is actually a crutch. Without gas turbine generators that can fire up at short notice we wouldn't be able to use the fickle output from wind farms or solar. When gas is all used up we will have to store surplus electricity in batteries or similar for when the wind stops blowing. Start thinking electricity prices three times what they are now.

An interesting point about Peak Coal is that if China the world's biggest coal user is about to run short then we have the signals all mixed up. Each night on Australian TV business analysts tell us the good prices for export coal are a sign all is well. Maybe it's a sign all is not well since coal imports can never maintain Chinese output. It could mean before long China imports less iron ore, copper, alumina and so on.

In my opinion we should stop subsidising unreliable renewable energy and allow nuclear power in Australia. Retain carbon pricing after getting rid of numerous loopholes and see what happens. Let renewables find their own level.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 7:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The answer to Kurt’s opening question is correct. None of the above.

The astonishing thing about this article is the complete absence of any discussion about the one energy option that can be sustainable for thousands of years - nuclear power using fast reactors. It’s like this option does not even exist! Hard to imagine that a man of such knowledge about energy isn’t aware of these nuclear options.

Kurt may be right about the demise of fossil fuels. But if he thinks that we have the technology today to make a wholesale shift to renewable energy without any fossil fuels or nuclear power he is delusional.
Posted by Martin N, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:32:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most remarkable thing about this essay is the complete absence of any reference to nuclear energy. This omission renders the whole article to the "of no consequence" bin.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:55:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Though natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than coal or oil when it is burned, it still contributes mightily to climate change. "

What a bold assertion!

The author appears to be from the school that simplistically claims that as atmospheric CO2 and/or methane parts per million have been showing a rising trend, they must be the drivers of global warming.

Regardless, he should back up his claim with compelling scientific evidence that shows the measurable relationship between the anthropogenic components of these two gases and global warming.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 11:06:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Guys,

Just because the article does not mention nuclear does not invalidate the arguments presented.

Back to nuclear power. We would need to building plants now -- which we are not. Anyone want one near their house? No? Why ever not? Surely one or two accidents aren't going to put anyone off?

How do we decide who gets nuclear power? The U.S is pretty jumpy about the Iranians and their reactor. Would we want more nuclear material about in an energy hungry world?

Without reprocessing there is about 35 years with of uranium (sorry I can't remember where I read that; I may well be wrong).

Nuclear would only be a stop gap. While we would could generate electricity our current infrastructure is setup for liquid fuel. I can't imagine Australia running a viable road transport system using electricity. Rail yes (maybe) Road no; Air travel? Definitely not! Sea travel? Probably not.

Really there is little alternative to oil for our current way of life.
Posted by Charger, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 11:16:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The best part of Kurt's article is the quote attributed to Mark Twain. The rest was, as they say, 'Unsustainable'. As Al Jolson said in a memorable assault on the English language as he introduced 'Talkies' to the movie industry, 'You ain't seen nothing yet'. Coals ain't coals, oils ain't oils, nuclear energy ain't nuclear energy and renewables ain't renewables. There are so many varieties of each of these known forms of energy that the commentators quickly and easily become lost in uninformed commentary, scaring the kids and the horses witless in the process. This planet is a veritable ball of minerals and energy, and the universe mind-bogglingly so. Coal, oil and gas have given man prosperity and breathing space to develop new and more efficient technologies and these will come on stream long before the so-called 'fossil fuels' are anywhere near exhausted, provided idiotic governments don't tax these cheap energy sources to their knees and drive us into poverty and despair. Read the story of Tesla who made extraordinary breakthroughs in generation and transmission of energy. Read The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold to find there weren't enough dead dinosaurs to make all the oil, coal and gas reserves, that methane is constantly being generated within the earth to refuel as it were the carbon energy reserves which drive civilisation as we know it. Kurt, you can do better than that.
Posted by John McRobert, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 11:48:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no alt; to oil because oil is still there. Even if you started talking about neuk power it would be 50 years before you see any.
The US is miles in front with solar, gigantic arrays. Fish are feeling the consequences of raised co2 in the ocean.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 11:50:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author makes a lot of sense, and though a word to the wise should be sufficient, it appears that real wisdom is in short supply.

The only failings I see in this article are firstly that the answer should be 'all of the above', and secondly that he makes no mention of geothermal, which could possibly make a real difference, and should warrant more intense investigation.

Is there any real alternative to a reliable sustainable energy future? I think not. Could a proliferation of nuclear facilities be an answer (though itself of a limited lifespan, and with major 'waste disposal' issues) - or could this potentially represent a recipe for an unstoppable chain reaction, and mass extinction?

Environmental stress is already at, or near, epidemic proportions, with much degradation now irreversible, and with dire consequences already evident to those who care to see. A tipping point is at hand.

Shall history record sagacity; or total disregard and staggering short-sightedness?
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 2:13:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently Kurt is the author of a "peak-oil-themed thriller Prelude" - he has a vested interest in alarming the public. Oil/Gas reserves are only ever calculated on the amount which is available "at current prices" ie worth extracting at the time. As the price goes up more exploration finds and extracts more oil. While there is a finite amount of oil, no-one knows what that is but then again there is a finite amount of everything.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 2:28:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGW is garbage; renewables do not work in any meaningfull sense of supplying base load power and peak oil is is just another, albeit notionally seperate, scaremongering aspect of AGW:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9685000/9685024.stm
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 6:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Kurt's article demonstrates that he understands very little about microeconomics, and particularly the ways in which supply/demand and price interract.

The reality is this. There are abundant resources capable of delivering "oil" to the market. As Kurt says, many of the ways to do this are capital intensive. What that actually means is that, depending on who the owner is, there may or may not be difficulties in funding the capital intensive projects. Major oil companies clearly have the strong balance sheets that allow them to develop capital intensive projects. But it seems possible that the major oil companies have realised that they profit greatly if they can constrain supply.

I have suggested before, and I suggest again, that if the US (say) was really interested in energy security, all it has to do is to offer to qualified projects a guaranteed price of (say) US$100 per bbl of oil produced, for 20 years. If they did this, you will soon see the emergence of massive production. What oil glut?

And nuclear (why is that word pronounced nucular by so many supposedly knowledgeable players? is a whole other issue!
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 7:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As mentioned above. The bridge fuel can only be nuclear. The green failure to acknowledge this makes their entire policy position vacuous.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 7:46:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AU goes nuke; while the rest get off of it.[ brilliant]
Posted by 579, Thursday, 26 January 2012 8:14:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbert if the US want energy security it only has to issue the drilling permits. They have a known 100 year supply of oil, & shale oil in the ground, but Obama, chasing the greenie vote, won't issue the licences to harvest.

They could also approve the pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast, so the oil they were importing was friendly oil, but again Obama's politics get in the way.

The fool is all ready starting to try to prevent the harvest of shale natural gas. Some of this is doubtless due to the large percentage of his campaign funds that come from the wind & solar power industries. No doubt much of this is transferred from the huge subsidies, [up to half a billion] he has given them from taxpayer funds.

The shale gas has totally destroyed investment in those ridiculous "renewables" that are so uneconomic, they require massive corruption of the market for real energy, along with the subsidies.

Don't get the impression from this that I am suggesting that the Obama administration is corrupt, I'm not, I'm shouting it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:16:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What would you need a bridging fuel for. The people that say climate change is imaginary, just hold change up. Renewables are alive and well, its AU that is way behind.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I came to this article late and I am distressed to see that only a couple of the author's glaring flaws in logic have been picked up.

As he notes the energy market has been transformed in the past few years by changes in technology which permits previous untapped shale fields to be economic, yet complains that we "only" have a 100 years or so of gas reserves at present production. He then makes the classic mistake of assuming that production will increase (quite true) but reserves will stay the same (nope - try again). We now have vastly more reserves than we did even a few years ago, let alone 30 years ago.

Same thing for coal. We now seem to have more reserves of coal than we did 30 years ago - or it may be about the same - at presetn rates of production. But one of the reasons the 100 year figure keeps on popping up is that no one bothers to count much beyond that level. It takes time and money to prove up a coal reserve and if the coal companies aren'tgoing to get to it for decades, they don't bother.

As for the oil, sure recetn production has not been all that could be hoped, but the alternative story is that OPEC is under investing in oil production and exploration for political reasons - not that we are approaching any fundamental limit. The author should start reading up about unconventional reserves in Canada and the gigantic deep water discoveries off the coast of Brazil. He would find himself much better informed as a result.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:26:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There has been a significant amount of uninformed comment.
First don't confuse this problem with global warming.
This a very different and a much more serious problem.

John McRobert appears to be a believer in the magic pudding.
Many assume higher prices will magically produce more oil.
Well they didn't !
Why, because peak crude oil occurred in 2005/2006. It is now history.
We are stuck at 75 M barrels a day.

Re gas, it will help but it cannot stop energy depletion, it can give
a little more time but gas unfortunately depletes very quickly once
it peaks. Also it is at present very cheap and in the US companies
are having a hard time to be profitable. They seem to be OK here.

Re coal, 30 years ago they did not have what they believed they had.
The best grades of coal from most countries have been burnt.
They are now working on more expensive lower grades, which greater
quantities have to be mined to get the same energy.
World peak coal was expected about 2025, but it probably has moved
forward because China has increased its imports by a large amount.

What no one seems to realise is that price does not solve the problem.
When the energy costs of an economy exceed something like 4 to 6 %
of GDP, then that economy goes straight into recession.
See what happened as the price of oil & coal rose during 2007 peaking
in July 2008 at $147 a barrel.
Remember this, 11 of the last 12 recessions were proceeded by a peak
in the price of oil.

Thats why rising prices do not solve the problem, except that the
economy no longer needs that energy because most are out of work.

Geothermal needs more effort. There is an enormous amount of energy
down there, just waiting to be tapped.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 30 January 2012 10:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't be so silly Bazz, if we do get the technology to tap geothermal, the greenies will start screaming that interfering with that heat Will make the planet explode, implode, or do some yet to be dreamed up awful consequence.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 30 January 2012 12:04:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geothermal is continuing exploration, there are good supplies of earth heat.;capped; Drilling is finding the most productive areas.
Co2 levels affecting fish, is interesting. There seems to be new species popping up all around the world.
Posted by 579, Monday, 30 January 2012 12:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy