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 > The real threat of global warming > Comments

The real threat of global warming : Comments

By Walter Starck, published 27/8/2007

A global warming catastrophe will become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it leads us to do nothing to prepare for coming fuel shortages.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
NASA scientist James Hansen has said that we don't need to worry too much about CO2 from declining petroleum reserves so long as all coal burning is converted to emissions capture. Others point out that 'clean coal' is not yet viable and yet others say even coal will run out a lot earlier than we think. Coal-to-liquids has 2.3 times the well-to-wheel emissions of petrol and uses large amounts of land and water. It is more efficient to charge battery cars on electricity made from coal, particularly if the plants use combined cycle gasification or supercritical steam even without the bogus CO2 capture technology.

I believe the correct approach is to stringently cap coal use while at the same time encouraging the switch to gas and electricity in transport (via batteries, rail) as well as clean ways of generating that electricity. That way we can confront both warming and oil depletion though it won't be easy.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 27 August 2007 9:18:40 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
I get a bit grumpy about how environmentalists like to pretend there are no economic impacts to their prognostications, while at the same time, economists seem to think that "the market" exists as something untouched by the economy. Both are wrong.

Global warming or climate change, as the author says, is still debatable, though we are certainly seeing more challenging weather events in recent years. But I contend that "climate change" or "global warming" is really only a symptom of the rise of the hydrocarbon driven population explosion that began in earnest with the start of the industrial revolution. (See David Strahan: The Last Oil Shock.)

In the manner in which we are expending the now rapidly depleting stocks of petroleum products, we are facing a known problem of trying to maintain a world population and a world economy which is based the widespread availability of cheap oil. Some dreamers talk about "steady-state economics", but I cannot see us willingly giving up our lifestyles to share with other nations. While it may be possible to plan a soft-landing for the world economy, the basic evolutionary drive of people to ensure the continuance of their DNA makes conflict seem inevitable.

You can bet that secret plans at places like the Pentagon have added population-driven doomsday scenarios into their strategic planning.
Posted by jimoctec, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:03:02 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
What a breath of fresh air Walter Stark is...unpolluted by fear of thinking outside of the Henny Penny 'sky is falling' mentality that is pervading the 'Global Warming' debate at present.

Taswegian, you've left out the real environmental winners in the bio-fuel options available...ethanol and bio-diesel. Renewable and environmentally beneficial as well as more practical than electricity. Seriously, how many kms. do you travel each day? This is a BIG country, with a rural and regional population that often travel many 100s of kms per day to perform such mundane tasks as taking children to schools and driving to shops and basic services. It is simply not practical to suggest that those outside of the city precincts could utilise electric vehicles...let alone have the time to sit around waiting for a re-charge along the way to town, if the facilities existed anyway.

A brief look at Brazil's recent environmental history, pre-and-post-ethanol shows the enormous environmental benefits achieved in that country through the use of mandatory ethanol blends in their fuel. (Presently over 20%) Larger Brazilian cities were in danger of having to be re-located or a solution found to the serious pollution problems existing just decades ago...the solution? Ethanol blends which cleaned up the fuel emissions at just 10% ethanol blends. A bonus was the enormous economic windfall that the country has experienced by not being so dependent on fossil fuels and supplying their own renewable fuels (and now exporting Ethanol, further improving their balance of payments figures).

Brazil has been an undisputed environmental success story and flex-fuel vehicles now allow ethanol blends up to 100% at the flick of a switch...Holden Australia manufactures flex-fuel cars for export to Brazil, yet BIG OIL and self-interested parties ensure that political donations keep the Australian public from benefiting from this environmental and economic success on our own shores.

White Board aside, previous ALP Minister, Roz Kelly supported a biofuels 'rally' of sorts which pitted various biofuel vehicles against one another, ethanol-based biofuels won EVERY catagory hands down.

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:11:45 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
(Cont...)

When developing and developed countries around the world have successfully adopted or are adopting ethanol blends, including Sweden, USA, India, Japan, China, Germany, Brazil and numerous others, the question is how long will political donations to all the major parties, from self-interest groups, prevent governments and oppositions in Australia from recognising and adopting the obvious and practical alternatives to fossil fuels?

As a renewable fuel, ethanol is carbon neutral, i.e., burning ethanol produces equivalent CO2 as is absorbed in the crops it is produced from. Additionally, by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels and using renewable fuels at all stages of ethanol or biofuel production, CO2 emissions can be reduced by a factor of 5.

Immunologist, Dr Ray Kearney has documented frightening medical results from what he calls the 'new asbestos' (fossil fuel motor vehicle emissions)...a 10% ethanol blend can reduce dangerous tailpipe emissions like carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, toluene, benzene, etc. by around 50%.

We are in danger of repeating another Y2K fiasco and instead of wasting $3 Trillion, a massive $42 Trillion has already been committed to more Global Warming theorising...will it achieve anything? Or will it merely be wasted on endless conferences and employ otherwise superficial academics or self-appointed 'experts' who swan around looking for the next easy taxpayer buck to jump on the bandwagon to acquire?

Walter Stark, like Ray Kearney, on the other hand...seems to devote endless hours and research on a voluntary basis, to ensure the general public has facts rather than only the dramatised theory and propaganda promoted by the media and others looking to fabricate a sensation.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:13:05 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
Congratulations on an excellent article. Being the skeptic that I am, I am also skeptical whether we will need fuel-from-coal technology for some time to come, but there is certainly no harm in having it to hand.

In any case, the forecasts concerning global warming are just that - forecasts. Further they are forecasts made from what amounts to only fragmentary knowledge - at best - of how climate works. Yet, a number of eminent scientists are claiming that there is a degree of certainty attached to the forecasts!

Time for more scepticism.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 27 August 2007 11:23:35 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 have been very encouraged by this article, and especially from posts such as the one from jirnotec.

The key to the whole problem is population. That of the first world has stabilised, but that of the third world is set to double in the next 25 years.

Any action to deal with the end of cheap oil and possible global warming that does not include action to limit the third world population increase is simply urinating into the breeze.

Unfortunately, the only issue on which both the Vatican and the muslim world agree is that no action must be taken to restrict population growth. For some reason, while all and sundry are beating their breasts about our guilt, population is never mentioned. This is why I consider it to be just a media beat-up.

It is also obvious that countries like China have only made progress because they took action on population.

The thing for the first world to do is to tell the third world that unless they take action, all aid will be cut off.

The simplest action, with which the first world can assist, is to educate young third world women, as the number of children they bear is inversely proportional to their education.

The alternative is for the population problem to be addressed by the four horsemen of the apocalypse - war, famine, pestilence and death.

Unfortunately, most third world countries equate population control with genocide.
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 27 August 2007 12:58:26 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
Australia's role in combatting global warming or whatever term you use to describe it has been nil since John Howard came to power. He is still stuck on carbon based energy except for his uranium mines in every street ideas. Slight exaggeration there but give him time.

What I really wanted to say is that while Liberals and Labor argue the toss about every issue pending an election nothing at all is being done. Nothing. Zilch. Zero.

In Howard's case he won't do anything for 2 reasons. One is that he doesn't believe in it and 2 is that even if he did win the coming election any promises made would be non core and suddenly irrelevant as he would press the accelerator on coal and uranium.

So while these idots argue and avoid the climate continues heading where it is heading.

In Rudd's case he can't do anything now and won't when he gets in as he will have a settling in period won't he. Like about 3 years?

It's like the water problem. It can be best handled, politically, by ignoring it and hoping it rains, or the world starts to cool down.

An aside to Jimoctec. What economy would there be Jim if global warming continued to it's extreme? Would you be happy to protect your little pile of assets now and ensure your descendantrs have none or don't ever get born? Really, does money have to rule (ruin) everything?

Next they'll build churches to worship money. Oops, they already have. And many varied money religions too. There's banks first, casinos, Tab, lotteries, loan sharks, mortgage finders. You name it we have endless organisations dedicated to lending money. All equally committed to social polcies and helping us out at every turn. NOT.
Posted by pegasus, Monday, 27 August 2007 1:42:22 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
Curmudgeon et al, your continued global-warming skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is admirable, but for stoic pig-headedness rather than intellectual clarity.

Nicholas Stern said global warming was a massive market failure, because CO2 emissions are an uncosted externality. The same does not hold for petroleum, for which we have always paid. The soaring price of liquid fuels, indeed, may be a greater driver of technological adaptation than any public-policy action has ever been.

No government response is required to the liquid fuel crisis. The free market can take care of its own. As businesses and people find themselves paying over the odds for fuel, they will learn to use it less profligately and explore better ways of obtaining energy.

If a pork-barrelling government were to "pick a winner" and subsidise a costly supply-side "solution" like coal gas or biofuel, it would merely prevent the market from operating efficiently.

Meg1, you are right, within limits, to extol the benefits of ethanol. But your dismissal of electric power for transport is astonishingly short-sighted. Most car trips in Australia are well within the range of a battery-electric vehicle; some cars never leave the suburbs. Even on longer trips it is completely unnecessary to stop long enough for a recharge; all that's required is to change a discharged battery pack for a fresh one.

Short trips aside, most of the fuel consumed for long-distance transportation is burned by trucks doing heavy haulage. While trucks can be made vastly more efficient than they are, there is still a lot to be said for railway freight, which is easily adaptable to electric power.

There are many technologies in the offing which can substantially boost the energy efficiency of transport and/or the efficiency with which we burn our valuable liquid fuels.

Biofuels will certainly play a big part in our energy future, but biofuel technology based on food and other crops is iniquitous compared with techniques like cellulolysis, algaculture and biomass gasification.

We must especially not blind ourselves to the human cost of letting demand for energy compete with food supplies and biodiversity.
Posted by xoddam, Monday, 27 August 2007 3:28:03 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
Meg
here's a surprise..I actually use about 50% biodiesel already in my restrained car travel. I also have cut my use of electricity drastically (eg by only cooking by microwave or wood stove) so as to cover my daily kwh by solar panels on the roof. It is clear to be me these things only help on the fringes and will struggle to go mainstream. Alas I fear that some think they know it all without the benefit of personal experience. I may be dead wrong believing that global warming is real and that coal is mainly driving it, but please don't accuse me of hypocrisy when you don't know the facts.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 27 August 2007 4:44:07 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
xoddam and others - I think like many others you have become confused over what, exactly, is being denied. The overwhelming evidence you speak of concerns climate change to date. The skepticism is about the FORECASTS. You can't have overwhelming evidence for forecasts, by definition. There have been groups claiming 90 per cent accuracy for aspects of the forecasts, but that is their problem. Anyone who claims certainty about a forecast seriously have no idea what they are doing - and it does not matter how many computers they have or how impressively credentialled they are. If they claim certainty about forecasts of warming, then laugh and buy winter wollies. Its going to get cold.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 27 August 2007 4:52:46 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
Conceded: no-one has claimed overwhelming in favour of any particular forecast. Chaotic systems have never been susceptible to accurate prediction.

Nevertheless this doesn't stop various government agencies doing their jobs and offering various potential scenarios: attempting to second-guess the weather and say, for instance, where rainfall might increase and where it will become less reliable. No great confidence is claimed for such prognostications; not least because they are very much dependent on political action or lack of it.

Given the inherent non-linearity of the climate, I think at least the best-publicised scenarios envisioned by climate scientists have been modest, well-supported and well borne out by experience as the years pass:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

I'm glad that you personally are questioning merely "forecasts" and not the basic physics of climate science. Until very recently it was quite popular amongst posters here to claim strange physical behaviours like "saturation" of infra-red absorbtion bands and to suggest that water vapour was somehow not accounted for in climate models. Or, failing to dispute the physics, simply asserting baldly that global warming is not happening. All in capital letters, of course.

There *is* overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gases act to trap energy close to the earth's surface and that increasing greenhouse gas levels act to raise temperatures. While some things might prevent or delay the expected temperature increase -- a sudden drop in solar radiation, a massive cut in greenhouse emissions or a sudden change in the way clouds are formed -- none of these are considered very likely.

So, given that the basic physics are beyond dispute, and irrespective of any particular climate change scenarios, I repeat and emphasise:

There is overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing surface temperatures on Earth. There is a great risk of ecological disaster as a result. Now is not the time to preach complacency, but to adopt efficient and clean technologies.

Conversion of coal to liquid fuel is neither efficient nor clean.
Posted by xoddam, Monday, 27 August 2007 5:52:32 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 the NASA scientists have got their stats on global warming slightly wrong and the media have ignored it because it does not make our hearts miss a beat.

It seems that the 1930's is still the hottest decade on record and we are all in total panic about the changes we are experiencing now.Remain skeptical because all is not what the panic merchants want us to perceive.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 27 August 2007 7:52:30 PM
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
It's pointless discussing with global warming believers. They are "believers"; doesn't that say it all? They know what they know, and that's all they care to know.

Everybody is aware that data recordings have been very haphazard until quite recently. Mostly the stations (ie little sheds with instruments on and around them) were manually read. Often they have been shifted, tampered with, their surroundings alterred, the instruments changed and much more. The Australian ones were very often (many still are) kept by Post Offices, where the staff would visually decide whether today was 27 degrees or 27.2 Degrees; whether there were 25 mils of rain in the beaker or 27, and so on. Check out the Guinness Book of World Records for hottest places and be stunned how many are based on records from long ago; are you wondering how accurate these records are?

Then, from masses of "possibly" incorrect data, an immense house of cards has been constructed to announce that the world has become warmer. And, going completely over the top, will continue to do so. The first thing my Physics teacher warned me against at High school was.....extrapolation, especially from uncertain stats.

As for alternative fuels, they will arrive as the market dictates. Ethanol needs a lot of energy to produce, and a lot of water for the vegetable matter it is distilled from. Natural gas will run out. Wind power needs the right spot for the turbines and then the powerlines to get it into the grid; is everyone happy with bulldozing most of Kosciusko (Aussie traditional spelling!) NP to put powerline corridors through, for example? Building roads through wildernesses to access the turbines? The market will come through with something we (maybe) haven't even dreamed of...when it is economically viable. Cheers
Posted by punter57, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 9:55:13 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
We are a finite world, that is factual. Crying the Sky is falling is neither right or wrong if it helps get people thinking for a little while.

Does it really matter who is right? We hop out of bed in the morning and never consider what happens to give us our present lifestyles.
The world mightnt be in the state of affairs as advertised or could actually be worse. I would love these guys as marketing gurus for my business. The outcomes are acceptable and advantageous for everyone.
Children who are the next generation have the knowledge that they do not live in an infinite society. Companies and product manufacturers realise that there are other ways to work.

Logically, this marketing of how important our world is, does not seem to have a damaging negative effect rather the opposite.
Technology requires a huge overhaul, packaging also. This will benefit the people in the end and that is by no means bad.
Posted by cardine, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:16:15 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
Forecasts are forecasts, yes. Just as it irks me when weather readers say "today will be.../ tomorrow will be..." And there'll be far more to learn on the complexities, variables, interactive nature and lagging effects of climatic change.

However, it takes a few steps back from the boiling frog syndrome to see that climate change is real and happening NOW. All we can hope to do is minimise the effects of runaway feedback scenarios.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - New Scientist
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

Climate change controversies: a simple guide - The Royal Society
http://www.royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

The evidence that the climate change to be addressed is human induced is supported not only by the 2,500 members of the IPCC, but by further updated data from the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cambridge University, the British Antarctic Survey, Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, the University of East Anglia, the Stern Report, the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, the CSIRO, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and independent researchers commissioned by non-government, non-profit organisations and many more.
Posted by Atom1, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:41:54 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
Curmudgeon, predictions (i.e. forecasts) can definitely be supported by evidence (overwhelming or otherwise). It may be trite but I'd predict that the sun will rise tomorrow. The evidence supporting that prediction in the form of data and theory are pretty substantial. Another (less certain) example would be would be the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Again, swags of data and good theory. Clearly, climate change predictions are not certain but that does not negate their validity. The CC predictions put forward by the IPCC are supported by evidence which is significant and corroborative. It is healthy and useful to express doubt, since this is the basis of scientific enquiry. It is also important to consider evidence with an open perspective.
Posted by oink, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:50:11 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
I read a statement somewhere where IPCC said that their document did
not make forecasts but projections that could be expected under various
conditions.

They emphasised that they were not forecasting although it was pointed out how many times the word forecast occured in the document.
It all seems very iffy to me.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 4:47:05 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
Arjay, the recent revision of US average temperature tables was a "meh" moment. Raw numbers for weather stations from 2000-2006 were revised, making the "smoothed" averages for the years 1997-2006 all a tiny bit lower.

1934 was always one of North America's hottest years of all time; revising recent aggregate figures downwards (eg. 1998 by 0.02 of a degree) put 1934 back on top. For the USA. Global "rankings" and trends were unchanged by the revision. 1998 and 2005 are still the world's warmest years on record.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

It would be equally un-alarming (though maybe more press-worthy if it "set" new records) if published average US temperatures had been revised upwards by 0.02 of a degree instead.

punter57, I see I'm now a "believer" while you're -- well, anything but a punter. Do tell me when you think of something observable (like global warming, maybe) that I "believe" and you don't; then we can arrange our bet. Until you do, I reckon you're as convinced as I am.

Of course new fuels and energy supplies will of course be developed as required. Billions each year are spent with diminishing returns on petroleum exploration. Inexorably, technology has become a more attractive investment than geology. The energy business will change overnight.

Government can play a small part by enabling a market for the cheapest solutions to appear: encouraging energy suppliers and users to trade in "negawatts" and energy *not* used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negawatt_power

The Snowy Mountains are already well wired up for the existing hydroelectric system; no extra bulldozing required.

The grandest opportunity for Australia to become Howard's "energy superpower" is not in the Snowies, but back of Bourke, or maybe near Moree:

http://www.chrisharris.org.au/?p=125
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/250043

Bazz, there was no strict definition of the word "forecast" that was widely accepted prior to the publication of IPCC AR4. That report's scenarios are on a scientific par with weather forecasting. They're given with less confidence than tomorrow's weather, but (given their speculative political assumptions) more than next weekend's. Beats "market forecasts" hands down.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 5:41:22 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
Xoddam, I did not dismiss electric powered vehicles, but present electric personal vehicles are still less practical than most other forms of energy…for most people's needs. Electric trains are the exception, not the rule.
Taswegian…‘please don't accuse me of hypocrisy’.
Please re-read my post and avoid jumping to conclusions…I accused you of no such thing, merely suggesting you had missed an obvious and clear WINNER in biofuels!
Congratulations on your own efforts, but wood burning could be replaced also…as an environmental alternative.
Arjay you’re right and looking back, we’ve got more to fear from global COOLING to an ice age…when Greenland was green it meant more land suitable for crops, etc. During an ice age (or cooler periods that were not even as drastically cold) life got pretty tough to survive and food production became a more serious problem.
punter57, I’ve heard some pretty good tales of how those post office rain gauges were filled too…
cardine, telling people the problem is MASSIVE and unfixable creates an ‘I’m only me and it’s all too much to do’ malaise rather than telling the facts and how to keep things working well and fix those that need fixing…i.e., polluting our local environment will clearly cause problems and is something we can all fix. In the bigger picture, Governments should be including trade barriers against policies of other governments (like China) that are environmentally unsound or less than Australians are expected to abide by. We talk of level playing fields but our government policies reward countries like China who fill our supermarket shelves with poor quality and toxic produce and clothing made with dangerous, carcinogenic resins…while our own farmers and manufacturers are forced to sell quality goods for a pittance.
There are practical ways to reward sound environmental policies and penalise unsound products and policies before they cause health and environmental problems...presently we're encouraging unsound policies elsewhere and penalising the sound environmental policies that our own primary producers are following and decimating our manufacturing sector who follow far safer practices than the countries we're importing from.
(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 1:17:22 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
(cont...)
We have little manufacturing left and primary industry is diminishing fast...we'll soon be left with no choice but to eat from the toxic trash of foodstuffs full of chemicals banned here for years.
oink, Bazz is right, and any prediction is only as good as the data it is based on…remember those suspect post office rain gauges? :)
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 1:18:23 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
Meg1 You are simply wrong on electric cars.
I very recently joined the Australian Electric Vehicle Association.
The first meeting I went to a lady there had a converted modern hatchback.
She uses it like any small car, she does all her local running around
in it. The only disadvantage she has found is if a couple of people
are standing in the way when she wants to back out of a parking spot
they are not aware she is about to move as there is no engine to start
and make a noise. It was a very neat conversion with the batteries
divided between the engine bay and the rear and out of sight.

She gets up to about 100km range for about $1.50 per charge.
The car has two modes, performance and economy. One gives high speed
up to about 100 kmph and the other about 70 kmph.
The performance is better than most hatchbacks.
There are two companies that I am aware of doing conversions.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 8:54:25 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
Meg, the edges of southern Greenland get very green every summer. It does get snow cover each winter, but summer days are very long in the Arctic and it can get quite warm.

http://images.google.com/images?&q=greenland+meadow

Greenland's present climate is similar to the 12th century when Erik the Red led the first settlers there (though getting warmer). It did get cold in between, but the first Norse settlements only ever had a few thousand people and were already abandoned by 1450, long before the "little ice age" of the 1600s (neither cold nor long enough for continental glaciation). Greenland is no good for crops or hay-making, which is what the Norse settlers did with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#The_demise_of_the_Greenland_Norse_settlements

No-one need fear an incipient ice age today, because all evidence indicates the opposite. If we were expecting the earth to get cooler (and if an approaching ice age was considered likely to devastate the agriculture billions of people rely on), we might have an international protocol obliging countries to increase their emissions, not to curb them.

There's no likelihood of an ice age any time soon: we're at the wrong point in the Milankovitch cycle, and temperatures are increasing even as solar radiation decreases. Maybe it would be a good idea to retain as much high-carbon fuel as possible (firewood, coal) so we can warm the place up when another ice age does come around?

If monsoons and other rains fail (as they sometimes do, and may do more often and more devastatingly as a consequence of global warming), your fuel crops will help to push staple food prices further beyond the reach of those people whose incomes dry up with their fields.

There are pleasanter forms of population control than mass starvation. They require maintenance of a sustainable industrial civilisation and spreading scientific education to the corners of the earth. Relying on coal is no more sustainable than continued petroleum dependence would be; but with coal cheap as chips and emissions limits confined to a few countries, the market is blind to the fact.

Bazz, the AEVA website is unhelpful. More local information, please?
Posted by xoddam, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 1:40:25 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
Hi Bazz, I am not against electric cars…but your own stats indicate they have very limited use.

The problems are not with converting or purchasing cars to suit.

Your comment: ‘a lady…had a converted modern hatchback…she does all her local running around in it…she gets up to about 100km range for about $1.50 per charge…high speed up to about 100 kmph and the other about 70 kmph.’

So the car is unsuitable for highway travel for any length of time or even city travel that involves sitting in traffic for extended periods…100km range (round trip) even for most city commuters (including periods waiting at intersections and traffic lights, etc.) is of limited use.

Size limits (e.g., for families, etc.) are another factor that limits suitability as does capacity for use as passenger and small freight carriers…either batteries would be constantly being changed or battery capacity would simply be insufficient for the purposes.

Travel across cities or from one regional centre to another indicates that 100km range is very limiting. I also have a friend who has a small electric car which is supplied with her salary package. While she is determined to persevere with the vehicle, it is proving to be of very limited use as opportunities to recharge or requirements to change batteries over are not ideal.

For many purposes served by ‘local running around’ in an electric vehicle, perhaps physically ‘running around’ might still be the healthier and more environmentally sound proposition…just a thought.

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:14:24 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
(Cont...)

xoddam, please, I’m not suggesting that we’re heading for another Ice age…just that we would have more to fear if we were…mass starvation would be a certainty.

Better use of available food production could feed the world now and for the foreseeable future…greed and stupidity and an obsession for power (under the guise of other fronts) is the immediate problem with world food shortages, etc.

Greenland did grow crops, that was my point…it was warmer…so was the rest of the world…some places became wetter and others hotter and drier. We could use our water resources much better with some vision and planning. None of that will come about while the decisions made are political decisions dictated by corporate transnationals through their cheque books as election donations to all the major political parties.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:15:11 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
Meg1;
I am interested to hear about the friend who has a work supplied
electric car. Who manufactured it ? I was not aware that there were
any on the market yet. The only ones I have heard of are conversions.

One of the converters here is Blade Electric Vehicles http://www.bev.com.au/

The other I know of is a member of the AEVA who will convert to order.
He had a converted Mazda four door car for sale a while back.

There is a recharging point at Dural shopping centre at the supermarket I believe.
The Reva was banned by the government and ordered its crushing.

I agree that the 100km is limiting, but since becoming interested,
I have noted my trips and I have not done one trip that was greater
than about 80Km return in the last couple of months.
I will be doing one on Saturday that will be longer.
However I could get a charge at the destination.
Car fitted with Lithium Iron batteries are getting much better ranges
and I have seen ranges of 200 MILES quoted.
They are more expensive.

Sitting in traffic is no problem as no current is used when stopped.
Sitting at lights etc no problem.

Blade Electric had a demo car and for interstate trips he had a small
trailer with some extra batteries and a petrol generator.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 30 August 2007 2:10:34 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
Bazz, the Blade Electric car with the trailer and extra batteries sounds like it will be really popular and ? practical to operate...NOT!

Lucky he didn't need to carry a family or any luggage, huh?

I'll enquire about the electric car my friend was supplied with...no idea if it was a conversion or not, just remember it seemed more trouble than it was worth for the kms she was travelling.

I'll get her views and details and respond again when she gives them.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 31 August 2007 11:15:34 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 Meg1; I will be interested to hear the details.
The whole field of electric cars is changing rapidly with newer types
of batteries being available.
There are a couple of expensive electric sports cars that have much
better 0 to 100kmph times that are much better than Ferraris etc.
It is those cars that are getting 200 + miles per charge.
The GM car is expected in 2010 and the Toyota is expected about the
same time.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 31 August 2007 12:52:55 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
Hi Bazz, it turns out she has had two 'electric' cars. Not sure of the first, but the second was a hybrid Toyota Prius, which she no longer has...new job. This one she didn't have to recharge, the car ran on battery and fuel. She was happier with it than the first.

Practicalities dictate that electric cars will not suit many situations, biofuels are an environmentally sound and renewable alternative.
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 1 September 2007 12:52:20 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 Meg1,
Well the Prius is not an electric car.
Toyota has designed one, based it is believed on the Prius platform
but using Lithium batteries and no petrol engine.
If you are in the city or large town, take note of your daily milage
I know I was surprised at how small my milage averaged out.

Things are changing very rapidly in that field at present.
Cheers
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 1 September 2007 7:39:06 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
Hi Bazz,

The Prius hybrid is indeed an electric car...starts using petrol and then runs on the battery and recharges by switching to petrol when it needs to recharge, so my friend tells me. Toyota promotes it on its website as THE electric car, etc...it's method of recharging may use fossil fuel but generation of electricity for the grid uses coal fired power stations also.

Toyota has sold a fair number of these hybrids to Government agencies around Qld which is where she works.

While this car would suit even if you travelled distances, I wonder how they would perform as a commercial passenger vehicle in constant use or even for someone travelling regularly over 150km per day?

I have no doubt that electric cars will improve dramatically but electricity generation (recharged from the electricity grid) will still cause some convenience problems for some and electricity supply is likely to become a less reliable commodity as the electricity infrastructure falls into greater disrepair and demand outstrips availability.

Biofuels have been proven in Brazil for numerous reasons and still remain the most cost effective, environmentally friendly and renewable form of energy for fuel.

While supporting one form of energy, we should not overlook the others...
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 1 September 2007 9:24:13 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
Hello Meg1,
If you want a car that uses less fuel then get one of the European diesals.
They do a much better milage than the Prius.

Re charging from the grid, well the fact is the power from the grid to
the wheels produces less co2 than burning petrol.
This is because of the efficiency of power stations even coal fired power stations.

However the objective is not to produce less co2 but to replace oil
consumption. According to the Hirsch report it is expected to take
20 years to replace the vehicle internal combustion engine.
The fleet turnover time is around 10 years so we don't have much time left.
Ethanol requires too much fertiliser, an oil derivative, and the
energy return is not brilliant. We might just get away with using
sugar cane, but I doubt we can do it economically when you consider
where the ethanol would be produced and where it would be used.
It cannot be put through pipes.
It could get down to driving or eating.

There is not enough fossil fuels that will be burnt to reach the CCIP
projections anyway, so we should concentrate on the real problem.

If the pessimists are right then we are already out of time.
A major switch to public transport will happen well before we change
our cars, and some argue we should not even try.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 2 September 2007 3:41:17 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
Hi Bazz,

The fuel-efficient European diesels get good mileage because (a) these cars weigh very little and thus take little power to move; (b) diesel fuel packs more power per litre than petrol (it's heavier and has a higher carbon content); and (c) diesel engines have a higher thermal efficiency than petrol engines.

The reason the Prius doesn't do so well as a small diesel is *entirely* down to the weight and the choice of fuel. It certainly does better than any petrol car of comparable mass using a traditional transmission. I don't think there are any really lightweight hybrids available yet (even the Insight weighs over 800kg), but diesel-engined ones are already available.

It's certainly true that a battery car chraged from mains electricity will generate less CO2 emissions than would a comparable car with a petrol engine. But this does not mean that coal-fired power stations are very much more efficient than internal-combustion engines: they're not. A steam turbine at its very best doesn't reach 40% thermal efficiency (conversion of heat to mechanical power) while a petrol engine can manage 20-30% and diesels can reach 40%. CO2 emissions from internal-combustion-engine generators are actually somewhat lower than from "efficient" coal-fired power stations.

The reason vehicles' emissions are so high is that the engines are almost never run at optimal speeds and temperatures and spend much of their time idling or "engine braking" (an utterly wasteful process). An electric drivetrain decouples the power source from the variable speed of the vehicle, and also permits regenerative braking. The efficiency gains to be had are almost as great from a well-designed hybrid (which can choose the conditions under which it runs the IC engine) as from a battery-electric vehicle.

Expect to see plenty of plug-in hybrids soon, charged from mains electricity when parked but including lightweight internal-combustion engines for extending the range. I'd *like* to see battery-electric vehicles with standardised, accessible battery packs that can be exchanged and recharged at any filling station (like changing horses but with less personality). I don't know how likely that is, but it's practical.
Posted by xoddam, Monday, 3 September 2007 3:17:27 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
Bazz, a quick response to 1. 'Ethanol requires too much fertiliser'

...no more than for food and with the development of cellulose ethanol, this will be reduced per tonne of feedstock to minimal proportions.

2. 'energy return is not brilliant. We might just get away with using sugar cane, but I doubt we can do it economically when you consider where the ethanol would be produced and where it would be used.'

Brazil's statistics from sugar cane are: 1 unit of energy input produces 1.7 units of energy. US stats on corn based ethanol are 1.2 to 1.3 units produced. Brazil's ethanol energy output/fossil fuel input is 8.3 (Corn is 1.3 to 1.8), (sugar beet (1.9) and (wheat 1.2).

We produce over 85% of sugar for the export market which is now oversupplied. Around 40% of the domestic crop could supply 10% of the total petrol engine market in Australia with NO increase in production. The domestic market uses a million tonnes of sugar and there would still be sugar for export to NZ and other contracted buyers, with room for further ethanol production from the existing sugar cane crop without expansion. This does not include the ethanol production from grains that are already in existence, though less efficient, they are still environmentally friendly in all respects. Manildra produces ethanol (sufficient to supply the entire NSW market to 2% blends by 2008) from the waste product of wheat used to produce flour from their mills. No danger to food supply there.

“It cannot be put through pipes.”

Brazil is currently piping ethanol through newly constructed pipelines to ports in order to overcome their transport problems to get export ethanol to ships for transport.

(tbc…)
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 9:34:18 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
(Cont…)
Brazil is using ethanol for car engines to 100% in flex-fuel cars and for aviation fuel in aeroplanes currently in use. German built racing cars and carts have used pure ethanol for over a generation.

“It could get down to driving or eating.”

As indicated above, there is more sugar produced now than the world market can use since Brazil has expanded and continues to expand its production. This argument is not a valid one when the use of sugar cane is concerned as production would rise to meet demand requirements anyway. Regarding grains, significant increase in production is already happening in the USA since ethanol from corn has been in greater demand.

“There is not enough fossil fuels that will be burnt to reach the CCIP
projections anyway, so we should concentrate on the real problem.”

Surely any amount of fossil fuels that can be substituted by renewable, green energy is a necessity in the current environmental climate. The real problem with use of fossil fuels is the additives that are included, including toluene, MTBE and others that have been long banned overseas due to their highly carcinogenic nature…review some of the material provided by Associate Professor Dr Ray Kearney, (retired Dec, 06) from the University of Sydney, Immunology and Respiratory Diseases…his arguments for the use of ethanol in fuel are impossible to dispute for health reasons alone. Ethanol, even at 10% will clean up vehicle emissions up to 50%. Tests on vehicle emissions in Sweden and indeed world-wide, using ethanol blends, prove beyond any doubt that using the present fossil fuel blends and additives in Australia is killing our country and producing enormous damage to the health of its residents.

Use of fossil fuels is environmentally and economically against the best interests of Australia and Australians. Use of ethanol blends in flex fuel cars will replace fossil fuels and clean up vehicle emissions far beyond the actual blend % as indicated in testing done during the biofuel trials (instigated by Minister Roz Kelly), where ethanol powered vehicles won every category by a country mile.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 9:38:34 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
Meg1 says;
Brazil's statistics from sugar cane are: 1 unit of energy input produces 1.7 units of energy. US stats on corn based ethanol are 1.2 to 1.3 units produced. Brazil's ethanol energy output/fossil fuel input is 8.3 (Corn is 1.3 to 1.8), (sugar beet (1.9) and (wheat 1.2).
unquote;

Well there you are 1.7 to 1 is not very good at all and that is before
you transport it. Then of course you only get about 65% of the energy that you would get from petrol.
That means a greater volume has to be transported.

>We produce over 85% of sugar for the export market which is now >oversupplied.
Around 40% of the domestic crop could supply 10% of the
>total petrol engine market in Australia with NO increase in >production.

And its all up in Nth Queensland.
So how do we produce the next 90% ?
I suspect that you do not understand the magnitude of the problem.

“It cannot be put through pipes.”

>Brazil is currently piping ethanol through newly constructed >pipelines to ports in order to overcome their transport problems to >get export ethanol to ships for transport.

Interesting, I had not heard that previously. I wonder what is the difference in the pipe.
Must be lined I imagine with poly plastic of some sort (another
petroleum product) to prevent corrosion.
(tbc…)

Hirsch, the author of the US Gov report on energy depletion has just
produced a paper on the mitigation of liquid fuels. I have not read it
yet but it should be very enlightening
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 7:11:20 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
1 to 1.7 means that ethanol from sugar cane does better than covering its inputs…by .7…that’s better than any of its competitors...including coal fired power stations or ‘clean’ coal…if we can seriously use that term. .7 over and above inputs is almost double in this instance…that’s not good, Bazz…it’s excellent!

Ethanol does not have anywhere near the transport distances that can be attributed to fossil fuels and all fuels need to be transported…including batteries and coal. Ethanol would be produced in WA (sugar cane), NSW (wheat waste), Vic (CSR’s Portsea grain plant presently in planning stage), Qld (sorgum-Dalby and sugar cane from northern NSW to Redlynch and the Atherton tablelands). SA has investigations under way into waste products suitable as ethanol feedstock. Ethanol produced can easily be utilized relatively close to point of supply, with relatively little planning and foresight. …Not ‘all up in Nth Qld’, Bazz…all over the country…aint it great?

‘So how do we produce the next 90%?’

The grid cannot supply sufficient electricity for Australia’s present electricity needs, how do you suppose there could be enough electricity supplied to power cars, trains and buses without causing massive difficulties with power supply and resultant outages across the country…well then again, we’ve already got a regular taste of that with present poorly maintained electricity infrastructure, haven’t we? Of course the sugar cane crop supplies co-generation to the grid too, doesn’t it? Marvellous plant that cane!

The next 90%? Well that will be supplied by a variety of purpose designed products that will suit the needs required…e.g., ethanol, hydrogen cars (ethanol is a great source of hydrogen too!), electricity, gas powered, etc……..

With the use of ethanol produced from cane stubble, banana plants, timber waste, lawn clippings, sugar cane trash and other crop biomass, ethanol can be produced in far greater quantities within a relatively short time frame, the technology is there, it’s just the political will that is dragging the chain. I understand the ‘magnitude of the problem’ very well, it’s all about political donations by the power brokers who control policy…

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 9:46:28 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
(Cont…)

Your figures state only ‘65% of the energy that you would get from petrol’ which is a fallacy, ethanol is used around the world and in minimum blends of 23% in Brazil, up to 100% in flex fuel cars. Also 100% ethanol as aviation fuel…just ask a Brazilian if he’s got a problem with ethanol fuels. Racing car drivers use ethanol because of its HIGH energy rating…not because of its environmental benefits.

In studies and competitions held on biofuels during the Roz Kelly ministry (ALP), ethanol blended fuels outstripped the competition in all categories, including performance.

RE: ethanol pipes lined with poly plastic…?

How do you suggest that petrol is ‘piped’? Petrol is highly corrosive and still has to be piped into holding tanks and vehicles and then through the vehicles fuel system…no differently to ethanol or most other fuels.

I guess you aren’t aware that during both world wars when fossil fuels were reserved for essential services and the troops, 100% ethanol was used in ordinary vehicles across Australia, motors for pumps, car engines, pretty well anything that could run on petrol…and all without a problem, ask anyone who can remember. Australian cars are exported to Brazil and used with the 23% blends without incident or problem. Have you seen methylated spirits, rum or vinegar corrode the containers they are held in? Fuel ethanol has no more problems to address than other fuels…

As the US is moving heavily into ethanol fuels to secure greater self-sufficiency and economic and environmental benefits amongst other things, Hirsch’s report should prove interesting…the ethanol revolution in the US has been driven for decades by the demand from motorists who want to increase the blends they are using.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating…ethanol has taken the world by storm, it has outperformed and soundly trounced all its critics myths on every count…the fact that proponents of other less efficient or less suitable fuel sources are so desperate to decry its real worth hasn’t deterred its growing popularity around the world.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 9:48:54 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
Hello Meg1,
I can see that nothing I say will convince you.
1 to 1.7 is a very poor EROEI and not a good one at all.

I sugget you go again and read some more about ethanol.
It does have a lower than petrol energy content, 65% I believe.
Thats not to say that ethanol won't work and by the way the Brazilian
practise while reasonable is nowhere near 100%.

Any way I think we will close it off now.

Cheers
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 12:24:02 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. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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