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 > Pulling together a national fuel strategy > Comments

Pulling together a national fuel strategy : Comments

By David Lamb, published 25/1/2006

David Lamb asks did we believe we could go on without paying for the cost of repairing the causes of climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
David, don't any of you in the elite offices of power have any idea of what to do. By what you write, all your education has left you blind to the real world. There will be no pulling together, no strategy, no change, until there is total collapse and the ruling elite are flushed away.

We already have the capacity know how and resources to make this country totally self sufficient in energy and fuels. We have the farming capacity to produce all our own bio diesel, natural gas and ethanols, whilst being able to reduce our need for fossil energy generation.

Nothing will happen, because as you know, the politicians are in the pockets of the multinational oil cartels that are now controlled by the US and our mealy mouthed cowards of politicians just lie down and lick their masters proverbials.

“David Lamb is the Low Emissions Transport Leader for the CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship.”

What does that mean, except for stupid PC speak. Your paper boat is now powered by a match? sound like a reasonable approach to the future.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 11:15:45 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
Well I think thats exactly where the CSIRO could be doing something.
There are plenty of areas to investigate further, but being backed by good science would help.

Biodiesel from algae, using salt affected land, looks like it has potential. Biodiesel from higher yielding brassicas, is another one.
600k tonnes of fat from meatworks in Aus is another one.

There is now plenty of venture capital in Aus, with the 9% super levy having generated billions. What we need is good science and a business plan. The market will take it from there.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:08:37 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
doesn't this say something about our community, the lack of posts I mean.

I agree that it is the elite holding us up, the excise levy should be only used for looking into alternatives. If this causes funding cuts, put some excise on high capacity cars, cigarettes, liquor etc, tax the bad things.

How long does it take to grow a tree? how long a plankton?
which photosynthesises most? these issues are not hard, build some reefs. I think its the UAE who has built a map of the earth in islands, miles wide, so don't tell me this would cost too much. Just get on with it, the reef makes food for plankton, the plankton fix the carbon.

Mallee trees fix salinity and produce diesel

coal can be turned into fuel

the truth is that the oil companies must be stopping the millions of simple fixes for this problem

give me a few billion and I guarentee to make a difference that will be noticed down the ages. Give it to Johnny or any politician and he will use it to get reelected!
Posted by fide mae, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 4:41:53 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
I don't believe in the oil company conspiracy theory. I think that Govt deals with short term vote catching issues, so leave it up to private enterprise. But Australian private enterprise is not the best at investing in long term fundamental research, thats really
where CSIRO is required and at which they were so good at in the past.

David, if you happen to read this perchance, the figures that I have seen as to oil from algae, using brackish water, research done in the US, look pretty promising.

What we need is some Australian research. I suggest WA as a perfect place. We have heaps of cheap salt affected land, heaps of sunlight, heaps of innovative farmers who would be willing to get involved.
Already the first farmers here are making their own biodiesel from canola oil, to power their machinery.

But the science is missing. What species of algae could be used? How do we keep that species dominating a pond? What say your organisation puts a proposal to politicians? Email me privately on
bonobo@westnet.com.au if you like. I have some ideas on finance.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 8:05:11 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
“It’s time we pulled together for a national fuels strategy.”

David, it is time we pulled together for a ‘save our society’ strategy. I think the effect of peak oil is likely to be far greater than you express.

Your line of discussion is very narrow, considering only alternatives to liquid fossil fuels for transport. As well as this, we will need to greatly improve the efficient use of liquid fuels in order to greatly reduce overall consumption, because no single alternative nor any combination of alternatives is going to come close to providing the same energy at anywhere near the same prices as oil currently does. And our society is so profoundly dependent on it.

No matter how effective we might be at substituting oil, we will still suffer a pretty major economic downturn and all the things that go with it, like raised unemployment, inflation, and the magnification of all sorts of existing stresses. As part of the SOS strategy, we will need to consider all of this and start preparing for it.

I think it could be much worse. When transport starts to really suffer, supply lines will break down. There won’t be food on the supermarket shelves, a large portion of people will lose their jobs, massive inflation will set in, currently existing simmering tensions of all sorts across our society will blow out of all proportion, law and order will break down, and so on. We will see the sort of chaos that happened in Argentina not so long ago (which is a society not dissimilar to that of Australia). The scenario is extremely ugly.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 10:47:44 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
This should be the Australia day message
Posted by tribal, Thursday, 26 January 2006 8:46:17 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 alchemist; did you really mean to push the ‘blank’ button over at CSIRO?

Ludwig; Yabby; We may have seen one solution running right here in the capital on Australia Day only a km or two from CSIRO. It was a great display of vintage stationary engines, most run on the smell of an oily rag. Several looked like the ones abandoned in my boyhood backyard. They were Australian Made and I loved it.

We have just two problems, all were managed by old timers like me and none could likely fly despite their huge ‘fly’ wheels. However most as displayed were driving old water pumps, an essential job in this climate.

I believe by looking back we can find a winner here. These old energy transducers were engineered before cheap oil. The transport of this lot from original designs was either man hauled or horse drawn.

That means any youngsters whose folks went around then or looking on today have a lot ‘getting back to basics’ to learn all over after ‘peak’ oil strikes us here for real.

Growing your own bio diesel somewhere handy is only part of your problems in future. I feel particularly sad for the ones who recently bought high rise apartments on the sea shore. I reckon we are a long way off harvesting bio energy on these margins.

David; playing at the margins of the long hops in this country particularly on the goods side is hardly responsible. Collectively we have been living recently in an aberration of good times with easy outcomes.

I reckon the next haul will be the hard one.
Posted by Taz, Thursday, 26 January 2006 5:30:14 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
diesel is one thing, aeroplanes only run on oil...

imagine a world with no air travel... back to the boats! all space exploration will have to stop, I don't think there are any alternatives to oil available for air use (I would obviously be extremely greatful to anyone who says I am wrong on this!).

solution to chaos that breaks out after peak oil, move to the rural areas where there are not tribal frictions. check out some of the survival guides on the net to see considered opinions on what to do in case of peak oil destruction of society, as well as lots of other scenarios such as pandemics or nuclear war etc. all look pretty likely.

Don't forget the world ends on 21-12-2015 (mayan calender). Don't believe me, how did the aztecs know when thier destruction was coming, to the correct year? By the way, we are overdue for a comet to strike the earth (a regular event) and for a supervolcano to erupt (a regular event), and then you look at global warming. Might not be the mayan calander date, but we are all dead!
Posted by fide mae, Friday, 27 January 2006 1:14:28 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
its true we need a plan for the future, but i'm confident in the near future because we have such an inefficent relationship with oil that there's heaps of room for improvement. i think petrol could cost 5 times what it does and not make very much difference.
75% of oil is used in the transport sector as the article says, half of which is cars and one quarter commercial vehicles. the average car could use less than half the fuel tomorrow. For example there's a peugeot 307 diesel which gets less than 5L/100km -which is almost the same as the hybrid prius car! what i'm saying here is that if tomorrow we decided that 180kw falcons and commodores were not the ideal car to drive to work in everyday then there are existing options.
another factor is that with the rising costs of transport, more produce will be made locally- reducing the uses of fuel in the commercial sector.
more factors; people will take more care as to how close they live to their place of employment. people will adjust where they will go for holidays, where and how often they will shop, how often they will use public transport etc.

so i think we are relatively ok for the near-term (ie 15-20 yrs). but the age of cheap oil for transport is nearing the end.

after that it gets tricky... i'm kind of thinking coal is our best hope at the moment- if they can make it clean and convienient for transport use then its a winner- there's heaps of the stuff.

in any case i'm hoping we don't find a replacemnt for cheap oil too quickly (unlikely anyway)- that will force everyone to adjust to an efficiency frame of mind and promote a localised economy and community spirit again -which we all badly need after decades of consumerism and globalisation.
Posted by DDT, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:01:21 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
DDT, I think our society is pretty precariously balanced. There is not very much room for further stress before some pretty big issues manifest themselves. We have seen strong economic growth since 1991 and yet our woes haven’t lessened. Practically all realistic social and environmental indicators show a worsening trend over that period.

I don’t think it would take a very significant hike in oil prices, or a very big resultant recession, to really start engendering strife.

As you say, there is heaps of room for improvement with efficiency in the use of oil. But that doesn’t mean it will be easy. As with everything else that we have tried to improve, such as tree-clearing rates, overfishing, over-allocation of water for irrigation and many others, it will not happen in an equitable manner. Some people will be disaffected much more than others. Divisions will appear and unrest will grow.

It is all very well to say that the average car could use less than half the fuel tomorrow. But how would you make it happen? How would cut down on the unnecessary use of cars without affecting those who really need to use their cars to just about the full extent that they do now? Whatever you do will be inequitable and will no doubt disadvantage those who are already struggling.

Even if we are OK for the next 15 or 20 years, we still need to start preparing right now. This is what I’d call a best-case scenario. But we should be prepared for the worst-case scenario, or at least a scenario towards that end of the spectrum. If we over-prepare, so what (if that's possible). If we under-prepare, we are in deep doo doo.

I don’t agree with your last paragraph. If we did manage to find a replacement for cheap oil quickly, it would not force us to adjust to an efficient and sustainable frame of mind, it would be business as usual, with the same old rampant consumerism and growthism, taking us quickly into the next resource crisis.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 27 January 2006 11:14:20 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
Taz, “I feel particularly sad for the ones who recently bought high rise apartments on the sea shore. I reckon we are a long way off harvesting bio energy on these margins.”

Sorry, But I don't, but you are right. Most of the population are aware of the situation, but refuse to accept it or believe that their illusion will continue and someone else will fix it. Those that live in cities, are the last to notice detrimental changes, but the first to be really effected. Our earth was once like a set of scales, nicely balanced, now it is heavily weighted to one side and is toppling over. The only way it can be rebalanced is for the weight to be removed, that means humans, nothing else will do it.

As to growing your own biodiesel, its economical and environmentally a good thing, for the present situation.

fide mae , you are right about fuel for planes, even though they have been trying, so far there is no substitute for kerosene. Now that may be a good thing as most commercial flights around the world dump at least 2 tonnes of unburnt fuel into the atmosphere every flight. So the removal of that from our skies would go a long way to reducing the destruction. 2015, sounds a good time for a collapse and is very feasible. Whatever happens, the earth will survive in some form and so will life. Humans, well it will depend on how you prepare individually, not as a society.

In Tasmanian, fuel prices are already having a big effect outside the cities. We are controlled by just 3 corporations one is destroying the environment, ( Gunns) one destroys the social fabric (woolworths coles) and the other, (lab/lib coalition)in conjunction the previous two, destroys everything else.

The answer, get your own act together first and look after those close to you, then cope with the change.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 28 January 2006 6:37:09 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
Ludwig, you misread my last paragraph! i said i hope we DON'T find a cheap replacement for oil too quickly. By *not* having a ready replacement, it will force a belt tightening to prepare for the dwindling oil supply that is around the corner.
i agree 100% that changes will be UNequitable (they usually are!), it'll be the people at the bottom who will suffer most, people who's financial situation is finely balanced with almost no buffer to absorb the affects of high oil and fuel prices.

actually it's the rapid changes that affect these people the most, perhaps we should pre-empt all this and artificially increase the price of fuel gradually to bring about the necessary social changes required in a controlled manner. if we wait for huge and sudden price surges to wake everyone up then it'll be too late, you want to start the efficiency drive before it's *really* required. people need time to change their living, work and leisure arrangements but they need to be pushed.

extra money gathered from artificially gradually raising prices can be used to develop better public transport or any other things that will help position our society better in a very high oil price world.

However for this to work, our government must come up with some kind of strategy and inform everyone including businesses that this-and-that is going to happen so at the same time as we are being squeezed to live more efficiently through raising petrol prices, businesses are adjusting their product lines.

if i knew today that there was some plan to be put in place starting tomorrow to increase fuel prices by say 30c/L per year for the next 5 years, then i would start preparing NOW for it. If the gov tells you the price is going to go up its a sure thing- if some guy in the oil industry tells you we're going to hit peak oil production soon, you think "yeah maybe, wow thats interesting", but you don't actually do anything to prepare yourself for it.
Posted by DDT, Saturday, 28 January 2006 12:36:56 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
Thanks for the clarification DDT. I am very pleased that we agree on this point.

I totally agree with the idea of gradually raising fuel prices and turning the revenue back into public transport and all sorts of sustainability measures. Very good.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 28 January 2006 2:04:08 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
alchemist - That fuel that air travel dumps into the atmosphere is actually one of the things helping to slow the global warming, you may have seen the four courners program on "global dimming".

DDT excellent idea on price hikes, its sad just how often you hear this idea, from disparate people around the place. Just one example of how the "great unwashed" often are more cogent of the problems than the "educated elites". Still this is usually the case only on reletively simple problems such as scientific ones, where there ain't much room for argument. I am sure that everyone agrees (perhaps not about the same ones) that the posts in the forums on social issues are significantly less worth reading. Often totally misinformed etc.

guess thats what post-modernity is about, everyone's veiwpoint is equally valid (I do not agree with this). The reason I mention this now is the difference between peoples knowledge of scientific problems compared with social ones. People can know about science because it is objective (no matter what the sociologist say, it is almost perfectly objective, especially compared to sociology). the social issues everyone goes their own way, even with no education they think thier opinion really counts.

take the war in iraq, citizens actually have next to no say in matters of war, their only say is in electing the war cabinet (this is not so with regard to all areas of policy, education for example would always have a clear community input as evidenced by the p&c (which no parents bother to go to anymore)). The fact that people feel their opinion counts when compared to the thousands of people working together just in australia to assess this issue, shows how ridiculous the 'great unwashed' have become (I consider myself one of these, as I cannot afford a proper education, and the community (you) don't care enough about their kids to ensure I get one).

By disagreeing with the war cabinet on issues of national security people are really disagreeing with how democracy works.

jish. got a bit of track there!
Posted by fide mae, Saturday, 28 January 2006 2:53:31 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
David,

Allow me to correct a glaring factual error - Australia does not have the world's largest reserves of natural gas, and not by a long chalk. Qatar, Russia and Iran all have significantly more gas than we do. Qatar's single giant North Field is several times larger than all of Australia's reserves combined.

We should be concerned that our gas reserves are being developed and exported now at a rate which may see them largely depleted within a very few decades. If oil supply is really in terminal decline (certainly this is possible if not probable), then Gas to Liquids (GTL) technology is currently available and has attractive economics at oil prices above $40/bbl. GTL can deliver what solar, wind, ethanol, hydrogen and nuclear cannot - affordable liquid transport fuel in quantities sufficient to progressively displace oil for long enough to enable an orderly transition to a sustainable energy infrastructure.
Posted by Philosopher, Monday, 30 January 2006 8:24:40 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
Thanks, Philosopher, my error. The offending sentence should read "We have the world's largest reserves of natural gas per capita".
Posted by David Lamb, Monday, 30 January 2006 9:55:48 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
Its great to see so many people getting emotional about this issue. Its going to be CENTRAL to ALL OUR LIVES, and DURING OUR LIFETIMES one way or the other, so at least THINKING about it, and having an opinion, is an essential first step. Doing nothing is just not an option. Nor is leaving it to the government of the day, nor to the oil companies, because neither of them has this as a 'core issue' and neither is prepared to put funding behind it. Write to your MP, state AND federal. Write to your local paper. Get the subject discussed at community level. Change will only come when the market, ie you and me, demands it and FORCES it to be an agenda item. DEMAND clean or renewable energy from ALL your suppliers, be it for transport, commercial/industrial, or domestic use. Nothing else will work unless they (the sellers of fuel and energy) come to the realisation that the customer is going elsewhere to source their energy and fuel from clean, renewable or otherwise sustainable sources. Then, and ONLY then, will they get the message and act. Its up to us to make sure that this happens sooner rather than later....because, by which time, it may well already be too late to prevent the coming trainwreck to the environment AND the economy. Our grandkids wont thank us for sitting around waiting for somebody else to make the first move.
Posted by omygodnoitsitsitsyou, Monday, 30 January 2006 4:48:45 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
The only problem with GTL, is it's not sustainable, and does have problems with conversion rates. Also it doesn't boost the economy in an environmental or economic way, just keeps us locked into our present reliance. Hoping that they will come up with alternative forms of propulsion, that doesn't use fossil and non polluting fuels, won't happen as long as the control of fuel can be kept in the hands of a few.

Biofuels, give us the opportunity to not only have a very low polluting renewable fuel, that is just as adaptable as fossil oils. It also gives us the chance to increase crop production on marginal land, by growing natives for fuel seed. Bracken has a good oil content as does wattles and other native fast growing plants. Every diesel will run very easily on it converted to biodiesel, with just a couple of modification's, they will run on straight vegetable oil.

Wind, solar, and water energy can overcome our other energy problems, by localising power production. Putting solar and small wind systems on as many buildings as possible and putting the excess back into the grid. This would open up jobs, reduce power bills to everyone and allow us to develop new industries for export, that would be acceptable throughout the world.

It would also allow for more industry to be operated in rural areas as power and fuels would be available at cheaper costs.
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 30 January 2006 6:46:56 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
omygodnoitsitsitsyou, you may be right, but seriously what is the point of a government if it's the people that must jump up and down and bend over backwards to get something like this sorted out?
i mean the governement has access to all sorts of surveys statistics, advisors, think-tanks and they have close ties with the business world and THEY are the ones who can legislate change. they are employed by us to look ahead and make good policy suggestions for the future.
..if they're really desperate for ideas, they should use Google or something..
Posted by DDT, Monday, 30 January 2006 10:23:29 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
To The Alchemist: It’s time we both took a punt on where we should be in say 25 years time. Then we both have to decide if it’s wise to comment publicly on a likely choice.

Some of my current thinking involves finding a collection of local industries in some upland area with forests. It means pulling up some assets now hey. Others will be too busy shoring up after we have moved on to notice the fall in values on the margins.

The question now is do we keep on buying cars and building roads or head for a place where everything must be on hand sooner than later.

Remaining the ACT becomes less of an option every week. Although this place always was handicapped with NIMBY’s it’s probably gotten worse with recent urban growth, more educated types who see the world through a computer. We can’t have a wind farm because of local objections, restore Pierces Creek after a spat between governments or rebuild CSIRO with Howard’s government favouring more coal research. The ACT has no fossil fuels to play with nor wood to t convert after the fires

There is plenty of work in construction now but it’s all focused on increasing real estate values and revenues. Almost everything we buy in shops is imported, often from regions far away.

I really can’t see how bio fuels made from what ever can help us shift the balance in demand for goods our way.

Perhaps we can have the Opera House rebuilt up here to add to the culture meantime. Ever wondered how long they have got to make up their minds?
Posted by Taz, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 12:00:30 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
Taz, I think I understand what you are saying, the ACT has its problems just like most cities. In 25 years, I have no idea, hopefully still alive.

I make these suggestions purely because they appear to be the best band aide short term approach to the inevitable outcome. Personally I don't see our current system's surviving 10 years, let alone 25. As has happened in the past, societies have collapsed under the weight of their non-sustainability, history is just repeating itself.

The most likely scenario will see cities throughout the world collapse as energy and fuel infrastructures fall apart and disappear, as is happening now. You also show by what you post that cities are unsustainable as their supplies come from outside their borders, so their own outcome is negative.

As in the past I am sure that humans will survive, but on a much smaller basis, again a historical fact. The difference is that we have a better understanding of all things and those that remain will be able to use things like biofuels to rebuild a better life, thats compatible environmentally.

This may sound ridiculous, but I think the time for making up their minds, was back in the 1970's. Our society is like something that has fallen of a cliff, we can see the bottom, can't do anything about it and aren't ready for the sudden crunching stop at the bottom.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 1:17:42 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
If Australia keeps on growing its population, it won't matter two hoots whether we have more efficient transport. Any increases in efficiency will be neutralised by more people driving more cars in more crowded cities and catching more planes and eating more food (read fossil fuels) and consuming more goods etc. etc.

Of course more efficient cars - and people not wanting to gross out on bigger and bigger machines - would be good but we really need to think more broadly (I was nearly going to use that hateful term outside the square) and realise that the time has come for the human race to stop bloody growing. Nothing, absolutely nothing, we do will make the blindest bit of difference until we confront this particular truth, in national and global terms.

Oh and by the way good on you David Lamb for raising this important topic. Good luck to our granchildren, they'll need every bit of luck they can get.
Posted by Thermoman, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 7:59:33 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
I completely agree with Lamb's sentiments. (He's very big on the rhetorical question, isn't he...)
If more of the tax component of our petrol was used "for the cost of repairing the causes of climate change" I'd be quite happy to pay $1.35 - $1.50 per litre. Its not though... (sigh, frown)

Anyway, heres how on my student budget I try to make a small positive contribution. 1. I don't ever want to buy a new car, because of the HUGE amount of energy consumed to build the damn thing - much more than it will consume in its life of operation in fact! Reusing my current car seems better (it really is a nice old Kingswood with a fairly small engine, driven economically) 2. I want to run in on E10 fuel. Problem is it seems even the 10% ethanol component of my fuel choice will degrade the rubber and other fibres in fuel hoses and carburettor gaskets. It will apparently also cause rust in the metal fuel lines and degrade the metal of some other seals and the carburettor itself.
Damn it!
What do I do?
Posted by Honest Mike, Friday, 28 April 2006 8:02:12 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
Fuel economy is not about hybrids or hydrogen it is about vehicle mass. For a car to accelerate to an acceptable speed It's inertia must be overcome. For it so stop, for people to get out safely, the energy used to build up this speed must be dumped as low grade heat and sometimes noise.

The elephant is peple weighing 100 kilos needing 2000 kilos of cheap materials and crude processing tecniques to move from point to point. No body wraps themselves in their heviest clothing to walk to the shops because of the effort it requires.

Use Legislation to weight cap cars. Bring the weight cap down incrementaly and benefit from less road wear, less damage in accidents and lower fuel costs.

Who is brave enough to propose and pass THE simple solution?
Posted by Backpacker, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 12:01:23 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
Why not just stop regulating wages up with the fuel price as we have done.
If you look at the fuel to wages ratio, it has not changed much over the last 35 years.
The only message people understand, is a higher price relative to wages, so forget about all this regulation answers, and remove indexing of wages to energy costs and the problem will sort itself out.
Posted by dunart, Monday, 5 June 2006 10:36:30 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 believe the best way to save on fuel is to change the way we use our car, and how we drive.

I found an interesting article here:
http://publicarticles.info/articles/fuel_efficiency/index.asp

Have anybody applied any of the fuel efficiency techniques in the above article and please share the results with everybody? Thanks!
Posted by theshining, Monday, 31 July 2006 12:46:47 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
Thanks for this link theshining. And welcome to the Online Opinion Forum.

Now here are a few more things we can do

1. car pool with your work mates

2. get on ya bike and leave the car at home

3. drive only so far on ya way to work and then walk, run or ride the rest of the way – if you can find a secure place to put ya vehicle.

4. walk or jog to nearby shops

5. get a bus or train, again maybe in combination with walking or riding

6. lobby our silly governments to stop increasing the population, because if the number of consumers continues to increase, our personal improvements are not going to lead to overall reductions in emissions. Don’t just think about your personal gains or savings. Espouse genuine sustainability – which means limits to growth (human expansion)….and the development of renewable energy sources.

Each point from 1 to 5 is as significant as all or most of the points on the ‘PublicArticles.info – How to save on fuel’ site.

I particularly practice points 2 and 6. Point 2 alone has led to a better than 50% improvement in fuel efficiency for daily commuting needs.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 31 July 2006 7:29:03 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
The following is from ‘Cleaner Cycling’ by John Dee, in ‘Road Ahead’, the bimonthly magazine of the RACQ (February/March 2006).

“In the last 12 months bike sales in Australia topped 1 million for the fourth straight year”

“…..bikes have outsold cars for the last 6 consecutive years”

“Prior to recent petrol price hikes, the Australian Greenhouse Office estimated that cycling 10km to work every day saved you $1700 a year in transport costs”

“Cost savings also come when you buy and maintain your bike [which is] only 1% of the cost of buying and maintaining a car”

“When you consider that 60% of car trips…. are less than 10km, there’s a great potential to increase bike usage”

“For each 3km you ride your bike instead of driving, you can reduce your personal greenhouse emissions by about 1kg”

“But the benefits of cycling are not just environmental. Regular cycling will also make you as fit as an average person 10 years younger than you”

So……getonya bikes ya slackers!
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:24:10 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
David

I am pleased you have raised this issue.

you will be aware that the ghg benefits of ethanol use in petrol blends as presently done, are trivial.

The costs of doing this so far are huge - probably in excess of half a billion dollars of public money.

You will know that this decision was made by government to satisfy big business and the national party.

As a nation we cannot afford to waste such huge sums of money for very limited, almost negligible, GHG returns.

Public funds must be used to achieve real GHG benefits. probably the most effective way of doing this is through public information to reduce waste and consumption.

We need a massive public education blitz - like the AIDS or workplace reform campaigns.

I have no doubt that this could save 10 to 20% GHG very quickly.

But will the government (or Rudd) do this?

The answer is NO.

Why? Because they do not want to offend big business - growth is God.

Of course quality, non politicised, research, is also very important; I believe some bio ethanol production might be energy efficient and GHG friendly - for example using wood as feedstock also geothermal.

But money must be spent where there is real value for the investment; at present conservation is the best of these and should have the highest priority.
Posted by last word, Saturday, 16 December 2006 5:47:47 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
No argument at all. I've been a Schumaker fan for years.
Posted by David Lamb, Monday, 18 December 2006 8:12:54 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 can't say that the general standard of debate attached to this issue has been particularly informative or inspiring. There are any number of possible biofuels, but we actually HAVE a secure, reliable, relatively non polluting and cost effective alternative available - natural gas. It may not be eventually sustainable but it's a terrific option until genuinely sustainable biofuels are developed and available. What it doesn't have is positive publicity, much government support or available infrastructure to deliver economically to the potentially millions of automotive users around Australia. Why not? No way out conspiracy theories please. Surely it's possible to set up a trial public site close to a centre of production with genuine retail outlets and media coverage of developments - how about the north eastern corner of NSW? It's conveniently located near the Casino gas fields. It has a tolerance, even enthusiasm for Green politics and enough money and motivation about to actually get something going.
Posted by mikky, Monday, 12 March 2007 8:29:43 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
Yes, we have natural gas and it's available now, but it isn't as suitable as it initially appears. For depot-based vehicles - buses, garbage trucks, urban delivery, etc - it's great because they can refuel frequently. For most vehicles, the space required for sufficient fuel to take you as far as a tank of petrol would occupy all the trunk space and probably the rear seat space too. When oil gets much more scarce or expensive, many city vehicles could use natural gas, but it would need a lot of planning - something we haven't seen much of to date. For a big increase in use, there would need to be a pipeline joining the supply in the North-West to the market mostly in the South-East.
If you're thinking we could use LNG, consider the cost and weight of the fuel tank. Quite different to have a spherical 'kettle' built into your car than on a ship. Besides, the energy required (and the emissions) for compressing the gas to LNG makes it an environmentally unattractive solution. There are better, easier and cheaper alternatives.
Posted by David Lamb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 8:23:36 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
Thanks David.I take your points in principle. What are those better, cheaper, cleaner alternatives?
Posted by mikky, Sunday, 25 March 2007 7:48:22 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
I'm glad you accept the fact that CNG isn't as easy as it sounds.
The easier alternative is electricity. The electric car is possible today if we accept a range of just several typical urban journeys. Without a national plan and agreement, however, it will be an uphill battle. Ultimately, when fuel cells become available, they can either generate the electricity on board or be used at the generating station (My bet is the latter). Electric cars are in use in London today, but Australia won't allow it on Austrailian roads because of Australian Design Rules. Time for a review of rules, in my opinion, not just because of that car, but to make sure we are protecting ourselves from the most important dangers. When most of the rules were made, the regulators probably hadn't heard about climate change.
Posted by David Lamb, Monday, 26 March 2007 7:32:38 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
Hello David. After recently watching a rather informing program titled "Who Killed the Electric Car", i become bewildered by the many realities car manufacturers have imposed on us. The show tells the story of the flash in the pan Existence of the Electric EV1 vehicles made in California in the early 90's, which ultimately meet their early demise. General Motors ordering the destruction of their entire fleet, despite the trends of gaining steady popularity and proving to be successful in having zero emissions and they drove really well.

This lead me to do some internet research, one site in particular, evworld.com caught my eye. This is where i came across an article from The Age, showing the Axcess car you helped develop. I must say it is quite amazing! I can only dream of something like this going big scale and having big backing somehow to get this moving. I ask, what are your plans from here as far as the next phase of EV Project? What can we do as a people to show our support for this kind of technology? David, your vehicle gives me hope as a solution to one of the many problems our uncertain future faces. cheers tobes
Posted by Tobes, Thursday, 12 April 2007 8:45:50 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
Thank you for your encouragement, Tobes. I've had a fair number of emails offering support, but I'm afraid the reality is that it takes lots of money. Australia's carmakers could have done it already if there had been a policy linking ACIS money - that's the billions of dollars handed to the car industry to encourage research and investment mentioned in the Age article. The rules weren't tight enough, so the so-called research has given us the same old big cars that emit more than 300 grams per kilometer when Europe is talking of imposing an average of 130 or even 120 g/km for cars sold in the EU. Sales of big cars have fallen around 30% in the past two years since fuel prices started to climb. We've seen the results in reduced numbers of employees in the industry, and today one of the suppliers has gone broke (Coghlan & Russell) who've been a supplier to Ford for many decades. If one of the carmakers can't keep its head above water, maybe government would redirect the milliions to helping a new company make small hybrids. It would be nice to use the CSIRO technology, but the most important thing is to make available a car that uses local industry. Then all government fleets could specify an Australian fuel efficient, low emission car.
The cynic might say that there's not much chance of that when the politicians ride in limousines - except certain Greens senators.
Write, and encourage all your friends to write and call Alan Jones and John Laws, insisting that politicians drive local cars, but ones that meet world's best standards.
Posted by David Lamb, Friday, 13 April 2007 10:07:02 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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