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 defining issue for transport planning is peak oil, not traffic congestion > Comments

The defining issue for transport planning is peak oil, not traffic congestion : Comments

By Stuart McCarthy, published 19/10/2007

The peak and subsequent decline in world oil production will soon become the defining issue for transport planning.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Great article! Now we just need to have the politicians read it. Interesting how peak oil and the recent prediction of food prices rising three-fold in the next 5 years are nowhere on the election campaign radar. What will that do to housing affordability?!
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Friday, 19 October 2007 9:53:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The defining issue for transport planning is peak oil, not traffic congestion.”

You bet it is!

It is simply insane to be pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into huge new road projects. The time for that approach is over.

Fuel prices could rise significantly at any time now, and the price of food, all other commodities and services along with it. Basic economics for the average person could change enormously in the very near future. This could have huge implications for employment and indeed for the coherence of our society.

We need to treat the issue of peak oil with the utmost urgency, in fact much more so than climate change (although there is a lot of overlap in the approach that should be taken).

It is well past the time when huge road-improvement expenditure should have by and large been redirected into peak oil and overall sustainability issues.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:12:22 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
Peak oil can only become a defining issue once awareness and acceptance have occurred. When oil passes $US100/barrel then there should be more awareness about peak oil. Acceptance will occur once agreement occurs among the big oil companies and national governments.

Here is my story recently posted on the Oil Drum which might help increase awareness. Currently, oil, as total liquids including natural gas liquids and ethanol, peaked at 86.13 mbd in July 2006. In September 2007 production was 85.10 mbd.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3064
Posted by Tonye, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:35:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article should be read as a statement of the obvious, about as enlightening as someone saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Sadly, I think the author is right. Peak oil is treated by many as another inconvenient truth.

But its effects won't just be inconvenient. It won't happen over a time span measured in decades. If it did it wouldn't be a problem - we humans can perform miracles in decades. Given decades we can move cities, re-route rivers and invent new technologies. Peak oil will hit very rapidly, over a time spam of 5 or so years. We can't even build and fill a dam in that time. In fact, it seems to take us 5 years to just to build a major road. It takes 15 at current rates to replace all the cars on the road - say with cars that don't use petrol.

In these circumstances, any head start we can get will be good - critical in fact. Head starts are meant to come from the people doing the planning. The thought that these people are still in denial about peak oil is more than a little disconcerting. They seriously need to get a clue, and fast.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:38:59 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
Even George Bush has admitted America needs to kick its addiction to oil. That neither major political party in Australia has yet to even acknowledge that reducing our oil dependency is critical to our economy's security is highly disappointing. Worse still, Rudd appears to believe the that motorists need protection from high petrol prices. Only the Greens appear to have any handle on this, and while I don't seriously want them running the country, putting them [1] on the ballot paper is about the only option we have of sending a message that their policies in this area should be the priorities of the major parties too.

Even if the peak, or at least the end of the current plateau, is still 15 years off, there is every reason for Australia to avoid becoming like much of the rest of the developed world - completely dependent on unstable Middle-eastern regimes for their most critical energy resource. For a start, those regimes are rapidly ramping up their domestic consumption, and the evidence that they are able to ramp up production to match this is not good - ultimately that means they'll be exporting less and less, while Australia's own production continues it's gradual fall (despite a recent boost from the North West shelf). The average fuel economy of our vehicle fleet is going nowhere at the moment, unsurprisingly, given the warped government import tariff system and the petrol taxation structure. Even if the government did nothing at all but to adjust import tariffs to favour smaller vehicles over larger ones, introduce progressive petrol taxation (i.e. the more you use, the higher it's taxed), and remove the FBT concessions on private use of company cars, it would go a long way to getting Australians to start thinking about reducing their petrol dependency.
Posted by dnicholson, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:42:48 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
Toyne, I agree that awareness and acceptance must come first. You may or may not be aware that the Queensland Government just became the first state/provincial government in the world to go on record and concede that peak oil is real. See my commentary here - http://www.energybulletin.net/35743.html
Posted by Stuart of Brisbane, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:52:44 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
Instead of just talking about it there should be action and idea’s.

Firstly I have heard that there is more shale oil in the United States then there is “normal oil” in the middle east. Maybe we should be spending more money on converting shale oil in to a useable fuel.

We should also maybe consider taxes incentives for car producers who make cars for the Australian market with gas cylinders already installed as the fuel source instead of the usual petrol tank.

A far out option is to open the Great Barrier Reef to potential oil exploration. Sure I bet the greenies will be throwing themselves off the top of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in protest but tough times call for tough measures. Oil production is a lot safer now and there is a lot less chance of a spill.

I think peak oil is already starting to bite and I believe that oil price spike will only get sharper and sharper!
Posted by EasyTimes, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:03:35 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
EasyTimes, yes the world has large shale oil deposits, but the problem here is thermodynamics rather than money. With any energy source you need to put energy into the extraction process before you get the energy out. In the case of shale oil you need to put more energy in (much of it from oil and gas anyway) than you get out at the other end of the process. I read a comment recently that mining cornflakes is a better proposition than shale oil.

We're better off conserving the viable energy sources that we already have and putting them to better use. Public transport is enormously more energy efficient (not only cost efficient) than private cars, that's why it is one of the key peak oil mitigation strategies.
Posted by Stuart of Brisbane, Friday, 19 October 2007 12:34:12 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
Re: my previous suspicion about average fuel economy in Australia:

"The average fuel efficiency for unleaded petrol-driven passenger vehicles in 2006 was 11.4 litres/100km, which was an 18 per cent decrease from 2005."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613465-12377,00.html

18% in one year is obviously quite a lot. But it's unclear whether it means that in 2005 the fuel efficiency was (11.4 * 118%) /100km = 13.5 L/100km (i.e., it's getting better), or (11.4 / 118%) / 100km = 9.7L/100km (i.e., it's getting worse). Either way, it didn't help the fact that our overall petrol usage is *up* from 2001.
Posted by dnicholson, Friday, 19 October 2007 2:28:59 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
Stuart,

It's great that Queensland has released the report "Queensland's Vulnerability to Rising Oil Prices".

The report says the "overwhelming evidence is that world production will peak within 10 years". Does the report define oil? Does production include only crude oil or does it include condensate and natural gas plant liquids?

The report also says "Demand will exceed supply, probably in the next 10 years." Demand is exceeding supply this year - that's why real oil prices have been rising. That's why OPEC countries of Indonesia and Iran are charging higher prices for petrol to their citizens.

I'm surprised that the report did not reference Robelius' thesis done March 2007 this year.
http://publications.uu.se/abstract.xsql?dbid=7625
http://www.peakoil.net/GiantOilFields.html

The thesis was supervised by Kjell Aleklett who launched ASPO Australia in 2005.
http://globalpublicmedia.com/kjell_aleklett_launches_aspo_australia_and_talks_about_peak_oil

The thesis defines oil and predicts peak in either 2008 or best case 2018 which is in agreement with the Queensland report statement. So far peak crude oil and lease condensate production occurred in May 2005 at 74.3 mbd and Jul 2007 was 73.28 mbd. Peak total liquids, including ethanol, was 86.13 mbd in Jul 2006 and Sep 2007 was 85.1 mbd.

When I mention peak oil to most people, awareness is very low. For more info please refer to http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3064
Posted by Tonye, Friday, 19 October 2007 4:08:25 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
Technically demand can only exceed supply as long as there are existing stocks to be exhausted, which is, to a certain extent, what is occurring. If the stocks run down to zero (excluding minimum operating level), demand will be completely contained by supply. What is pertinent is that *projected* demand, (on the assumption that supply is able to meet it, and prices stay reasonable) is set to increase at ~2% a year for at least the next 20 years, largely due to rapid economic development in China and India. In other words, that's a rough approximation of how much extra oil people will be *wanting* to use. At the moment, it is very hard to see how production can be ramped up by 2% a year sustainably over that sort of period, hence there almost certainly won't be enough oil for everyone that wants it, leading to some sort of bidding war. Australia can probably survive a bidding war with China and India for a few years, but it will be a shock to the system, and a lot of people will have difficulty adjusting to petrol prices that make 40+km daily commutes largely unaffordable.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 19 October 2007 4:26:48 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 bidding war has already begun in the developing world with some African and poorer Asian consumers dropping out of the market - meaning that we get to use their oil and the price rises are suppressed below what they might have been if the poorer consumers could pay.

Of course, it is only when Australian consumers can no longer afford to pay that we will give a damn.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Friday, 19 October 2007 4:35:02 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
It is probably going to be a bit painful for a while. But just think of all the benefits of having, for example, petrol at $5 a litre.

People would use their cars less, and public transport more. The increased use of public transport would provide the revenue needed to expand it. The roads would be less congested, which - in the cities at least - would mean that fuel consumption would decrease, per kilometer travelled. The air would be cleaner, road deaths would plummet. There would be a significant demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles, which will reduce their cost of production.

Food would become more expensive to import and to transport, which will provide a boost to local production, and the increased cost will provide investment capital for dams, water recycling plants and other infrastructure projects.

So what if we have less cash available for big-screen TVs, McMansions and gas guzzling SUVs? Not necessarily, in my view, a bad thing.

And that's just what immediately comes to mind. In fact, it might be a good thing for the next government to tax the price up to that five dollar level, just so that we can adapt more quickly.

Come on people. Think positively. All this doom-and-gloom is for losers.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 October 2007 4:38:35 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
Pericles, I entirely agree that *if* the price gradient is smooth and gradual, and we start to make adjustments today, the consequences - for most of the population - will be largely positive. However, lower-middle-class outer suburbians seem unlikely to be able to escape the negative consequences.

What concerns me most is an incident or series of incidents that cause a sudden shock to the oil price, as occurred in '73 and '79. The more and more oil we import vs produce domestically, the more vulnerable we are to such an incident, and given that virtually all the oil-exporting parts of the world have some amount of associated political instability, the probability of such an event is too high for comfort.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 19 October 2007 4:47:52 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
Pericles you must never have been on public transport to say that! Have you tried getting a seat on a train or bus in rush hour? Imagine what $5 a litre would do to rush hour on public transport! It would implode! It will take decades for state governments to get their act together and construct a half decent public transport system.

Due to the immigration burden that we have to lug around the public transport system is getting worse and worse. More and more people with still the same service!

Does anybody know when we will get peak LNG?
Posted by EasyTimes, Friday, 19 October 2007 6:09:38 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
err...WHAT's that ? "food prices rising 3 fold" ? hmmmmm *Looks around at his 6 acres of currently unused land* (with an evil glint in the eye) :)

There used to be a joke during one of the famines.. the 'starving person' who was hungry reached out and snatched a fly and scoffed it down, the next fly which came along was snatched not by the starving person, but by the opportunistic individual next to him who then said "Anyone wanna buy a fly"?

On transport.. *cough*... clearly the author has never trudged home on Melbournes Monash freeway in peek hour. CONGESTION is verrrry much the issue there. I often ponder how many of the drivers using the Monash are in heavy duty therapy just to get them through the next day let alone the next few weeks.

THE REAL ISSUE is neither congestion nor oil prices in my view..its responsible stewardship of the planet. Most of what we do in life is done with some kind of guidelines we agree to, but that's mostly in the areas close to home and to our immediate families.
'Far AWay' things like oil.... we tend to take for granted, including the ethics and morality of the drilling companies.

Once we become dependant on it... including the exploration/extraction ethics/morality... we are hooked.. so much of our lifestyle is structured on the basis of those things.

The Apostle Paul says:

I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.

If we could make this real in all our lives, perhaps we would treat the planet better ?

BUT HOW ?

Paul answers.....

"I can do everything through him who gives me strength."(Phil 4:12-13)

Alienation from God, results in abuse of the planet by many and support (passive or active) by others. Reconciliation to our Creator would be a good start in fixing our problems
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 20 October 2007 7:14:03 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
As it happens EasyTimes, I take public transport every day, and am a regular user of both trains and buses. And yes, I also have a car.

But my point was in part, that normality is simply a matter of what you get used to. There is little reason that we could not adapt to a lifestyle in which oil and oil products were luxuries. It's just that we don't want to think about it, because it isn't as convenient as that which we enjoy at the moment.

wizofaus points out that:

>>lower-middle-class outer suburbians seem unlikely to be able to escape the negative consequences<<

Again, that is chicken-and-egg thinking.

If companies found that their staff could not get to work because they lived to far from the city, they would decentralize pretty quickly. There are surprisingly few tasks these days that are location-dependent.

Unfortunately, humans being humans, there does need to be an external stimulus to get us to understand the need for change, and at the moment we are letting the oil price do the work for us. Which will be relatively slow and probably cause more overall pain compared with the short sharp shock I have in mind.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 20 October 2007 8:45:32 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 reason oil prices are high is because that is the price dictated by supply and demand. Every month that goes by it becomes clearer that the world has passed Peak Oil and production is now over 1 million barrels per day lower than it was in July 2006. That is bad enough, but an analysis of oil exports is truly alarming.

Exports from the top 16 oil exporting nations was 40.445m barrels per day in September 2005. This August just passed exports were 37.907m barrels per day, some 2˝m barrels per day lower than Peak Oil Exports. The trend is set to accelerate and is determined by two factors: 1) Flat or declining production in the oil exporting countries; and 2) Exponential growth in consumption in oil exporting countries where prices are invariably heavily subsidized. In fact, if these trends are maintained there won't be any oil for export in 6 years. Of course the trends will not be maintained. Much higher prices will change the dynamics in several ways.

Food prices have only just started to go up. Air travel will become the preserve of the rich again and they will be happy to sit in economy class seats. We are going to have to get used to European style gas prices.

Sure, the rest of the rest of the world will get drilled for oil, but it won't make much difference. 10 bn barrels sound like a lot of oil. Maybe there is even 20 bn barrels out there - that is not the issue. It is the flow that counts, and that will not amount to enough to make much of a difference. Anyway the faster you pump it the faster its gone. Say goodbye to your SUV's everybody. Time to go to check out that Toyota Yaris!

Looks like technologies like http://www.globalfinest.com/tech will be sought after
Posted by piper1, Saturday, 20 October 2007 10:52:44 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 will still be using cars after oil runs out.
The only difference is that they will be electric. This is not a future possibility. It is possible to convert any car to electric today if you wanted to.

In California, electric car freaks even drag race them, so they need not be considered to be some feeble alternative to petrol cars, only that they are limited to about 300 KM per recharge.
Posted by roama, Saturday, 20 October 2007 8:24:48 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
Pericles, except you're assuming that the economy stays afloat well enough to support high employment. Were oil start to become genuinely scarce, it's somewhat unlikely this will be the case. Businesses will shed staff, and even fold. Those that aren't dependent on travelling long distances by car will at least have opportunities to look for jobs elsewhere.

OTOH, if petrol prices were to, say, double or even triple, and employment rates held up, then many of those lower-income car-dependent families will have little choice but to cut back on any non-essentials just to afford the commute. Surely that's quite enough of a "negative consequence".
Posted by dnicholson, Saturday, 20 October 2007 9:21:00 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
Toyne, the approach taken by the Queensland taskforce regarding the timing of peak oil was to review 'creditable' existing estimates of Ultimate Recoverable Reserves and peak forecasts. Their conclusion, based on a statistical analysis of these existing forecasts, was that the peak will occur in 2013 +/- 7 years, i.e. sometime between 2006 and 2020.

Robelius' study (which is an excellent piece of work) was published only one month before the McNamara report was completed, so I'm not surprised that it wasn't included.

I have written a seperate commentary on the McNamara Report and its release - http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2081
Posted by Stuart of Brisbane, Saturday, 20 October 2007 9:53:14 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
Roama, electric cars are fine, but we don't make any in Australia, it would take 15-20 years to replace the existing petrol-driven car fleet even if the economy doesn't tank first, and there is not yet any infrastructure to support an electric car fleet. If you can see an opportunity here - get cracking!
Posted by Stuart of Brisbane, Saturday, 20 October 2007 9:58:53 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
Pericles we could all get used to walking around naked living in grass huts again if we were pushed but do we want to?

I must admit that in the not to distant future there will be less of a rush hour due to more people working from home. Why travel 1 hour each way a day to go from 1 computer screen to another?

I think LNG is a good alternative for Australia since we have such large reserves of it.

Some of you might find this link interesting
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/submissions/sub97.pdf
Posted by EasyTimes, Sunday, 21 October 2007 12:15:26 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
I am in agreement with the bulk of this article. Totally agree on the assessment of “peak oil”; support the view that a feasible public transport network could (should) be implemented throughout SE Qld and concede that the North-South Bypass Tunnel is ill-conceived.

Where I disagree is the premise of the article: “The defining issue for transport planning is peak oil, not traffic congestion”. Peak oil should be taken into account when planning transport infrastructure for the next 10-20 years, but it is far from the defining issue. As many have pointed out, market forces will influence the spending habits of the populous. Some will seek a public transport option; others will downsize. New technologies will develop, as will different fuel sources.

The overwhelming percentage of commutes will continue to be by private transport for two reasons. The first is convenience and the second is there is no other practical option.

The biggest hurdle to transport policy in south-east Queensland is psychological. There needs to be an acknowledgement by politicians & planners that the Brisbane CBD is not the centre of the universe. For most commuters in the Brisbane region, neither the origin nor the destination is the CBD. Most Brisbanites are employed in the suburbs; Brendale, Wacol, Eagle Farm, Coopers Plains….

Of the people who do work/study in the CBD, an increasing number also reside there. Take out state & local government and their related agencies and there are relatively few commutes where the centre of Brisbane is the origin/destination.

Why is this an important point to highlight? Well, an enormous amount of capital has and continues to be invested on transport infrastructure with the Brisbane CBD at the “hub”. All major roads with exception of the Gateway toll road are funneled into the city, together with the train and bus network. This is absurd. It is a recipe in how to create gridlock. The NSBT will simply extend the gridlock into the suburbs. With or without “peak oil”, this is an issue that needs addressing.
Posted by Concupiscence, Sunday, 21 October 2007 1:07:40 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 overwhelming percentage of commutes will continue to be by private transport for two reasons. The first is convenience and the second is there is no other practical option."

I read this sort of comment often. The idea is that things will continue as they are because they must. How silly. Of course, they will only continue as they are if they can - and they cannot due to Peak Oil. That is the tragedy of the situation.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Monday, 22 October 2007 1:15:31 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
A couple of fairly sweeping generalizations here, dnicholson.

>>Were oil start to become genuinely scarce, it's somewhat unlikely this will be the case. Businesses will shed staff, and even fold<<

Why? Which businesses? Why will they not simply move to another sector? You are assuming that "genuinely scarce oil" automatically means disaster. Having actually lived a period of my life in a period where we used far less oil than we do today, I know, from personal experience, that it is possible to achieve. I don't have to speculate. I've been there.

>>many of those lower-income car-dependent families will have little choice but to cut back on any non-essentials just to afford the commute. Surely that's quite enough of a "negative consequence"<<

It is a form of negative consequence, of course it is. But as I said before, if the people cannot travel to work, then - believe me - work will travel to them. I have been running businesses both small and medium-sized for the past twenty years, and I know that if a business needs people to survive, it will go to extraordinary lengths to get them.

There are businesses already that have shifted significant percentages of their workforce into "working from home" mode. We certainly have the technology and the knowhow to make it work, it's just that in many cases the will is lacking. Especially among middle-management, who seem to need people physically present to make them feel valuable.

EasyTimes states the obvious.

>>Pericles we could all get used to walking around naked living in grass huts again if we were pushed but do we want to?<<

That's precisely my point. Very few people want to do that, so they will find ways to ensure that it does not happen. On the other hand, there is an increasing contingent who have already made the switch, and are learning the art of self-sufficiency - I know several who have done so, and seem to survive quite well.

They don't have wide-screen TVs though.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 22 October 2007 10:53:25 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
No, genuinely scarce oil doesn't automatically mean disaster, but it would today, if sudden enough. Our economy is very much as dependent on oil, as it was in 1973 and 1979, and in both years, oil shortages caused serious economic damage (though Australia fared much better than many parts of the world, due to our then-abundant domestic supplies).

BTW, good list of examples of countries that are already struggling due to oil and other energy shortages:

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak+oil-renewable+energy-shortages/490

Australia is not immune.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 22 October 2007 11:09:30 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
New report from Energy Watch Group says peak oil in 2006 and global oil production is currently about 81m barrels a day - EWG expects that to fall to 39m by 2030. It also predicts significant falls in gas, coal and uranium production as those energy sources are used up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

The whole report should be available here soon

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Reports.24+M5d637b1e38d.0.html
Posted by Tonye, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:47:23 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
Well Stuart; Brisbane is not the only city gone mad over tunnels.
There is an intention to build an 8 KM tunnel from the F3 at Hornsby
in Sydney to Beecroft at the M2. It was planned to be finished in 2012
but that date has slipped. The politicians simply refuse to accept the
thought that the road will be finished just in time not to need it.

There is only one whisper in the wind that someone in government is
aware or peak oil. The state government as started taking delivery of
500 new buses. What are they doing with the old ones ?
Not the usual sell or scrap, but mothballing them; hmmmm.

You notice that there is not one mention of fuel problems ahead of us
in the current campaign. They are just too frightened to mention it.
Because the public has become aware of global warming (what global
warming ?) thats the donkey they will flog.

I have tried to get both my state & federal members to accept that they
should actually do something, but all I get is they will refer it
off to some one else's in tray.
The problem is politicians do not want to talk about bad news as they
are afraid the public will want them to fix it.
After looking at it they realise they cannot fix it for "business as
usual" and they are simple too timid to tell it as it is.

What is needed is a politician who will stand up and say;
Our policy is to sign the transition protocol and introduce petrol
rationing !
Ban interstate trucks and force long distance freight onto rail.
Cancel all major road works and divert the money to light & heavy rail.
Reduce airlines fuel to 10% of present consumption.

That is what is needed over the next couple of years or so but where
is there a polly with much guts ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 22 October 2007 1:55:26 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
Pericles,

EasyTimes overwrought comments aside, the issue brought up in the article is very real. Its not that there are no workarounds to the peak oil - there seem to be lots. The issue is the time and money it will take to make them work.

The car can as you say be replaced by public transport. Well, public transport that is powered by something other than hydrocarbons. But its going to take us 10 years to upgrade the overload Brisbane - Gold Cost link. Now multiply that by doing it for the North, West and East at same time, and the problem starts looking big. Certainly doable over the same time span we took to get addicted to oil (50 years or so). But in 5?

Or we could alter our housing to look more like Singapore, say - all living 20 story apartment blocks. Certainly it would work - but it will take 50 years at least to rebuild all our housing stock.

Hydrocarbons accounted for around 7% of our farmers costs in 1999. Its doubled already. Now double it a few more times in a 5 year span. So maybe we could replace all our farm machines with ones that use coal fired steam engines. Can we do that in 50 years? Easy I would of thought. Can we do it in 5? I doubt it.

And that is the issue. Sure we can go back to how we did things 30 years ago - given another 30 years. But if we leave it until after it becomes obvious oil has peaked we will be confronted with a very rapid price rise - literally from "the car is the cheapest way to work" to "only the rich can afford to drive" in 3-5 years. Its not obvious to me that we can handle such a rapid change. The answer is to extend the time frame by planning ahead - by building rail lines instead of roads say. But we aren't. Apparently our planners aren't even aware such a change will be required in the near future.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 22 October 2007 2:35:57 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
Relax, Bazz, you're going to get petrol rationing.

The rationing system will be very simple; those who can afford to pay $5 per litre will do so, and those who can't will go without.

Global warming will not be a problem, as the amount of CO2 generated will be sharply reduced.

Welcome to the 21st century!
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 22 October 2007 3:03:36 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 being the case "The annual petroleum trade deficit already exceeds $8 billion, two thirds of the entire trade deficit." raises the issue of why has government not demanded of all transport registered in Australia under, say 5 tonne, be powered by LPG or LNG?
Posted by Sapper_K9, Monday, 22 October 2007 3:10:24 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 rsstuart & plerdius you are both right.
It is virtually impossible to get governments to agree on global
warming measures over 20 yeqars, wait till they get poked in the eye with
a major fuel shortage in 3 to 5 years.

I tried to get my local council environmental people interested in the
Transition Towns movement, but all they want to talk about is global
warming. Here is a group of public servants paid to think ahead for
the good of the community and they think it is not a matter for them.
They are happy to run workshops for the ratepayers on changing light
globes and insulating their houses, but improve public transport,
change planning rules for farmer's markets, etc etc no way.

As the nun says on the TV, "They haven't got a clue !".
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 22 October 2007 3:23:20 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
I'm from a community group lobbying for rail services in Northern NSW and for a rail link from NSW to QLD. See www.toot.org.au.

In lobbying for rail we use a variety of angles, including peak oil, climate change, congestion and loss of social amenity, as well as social justice for those without cars. With such a mix we are able to gather widespread community support, and are now working on gaining political will at all levels of government and in the public service.

Our discussion paper "Connecting Communities Linking Regions" http://www.toot.org.au/dmdocuments/CCLR.pdf looks at the AusLink paper on the Sydney-Brisbane corridor & suggests rail as part of the solution for congestion and for climate change.

(The electrified line that currently runs from Brisbane to Robina is being extended south to the Coolangatta airport. Our rail line ends a mere 26km further south near Murwillumbah.)
Posted by Karin, Monday, 22 October 2007 4:33:17 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
Great reality check Karin, peak oil is big but its not the end of the world; the end of overfed infantilism, maybe. Great too to see near unanimous concern and support for common sense measures to adapt infrastructure and price signals, should too end the 10% import tariff discount for 4WDs, re-form national rail corp, merge urban PT management across modes, altogether might do for 2007.

Of course if we were really serious we'd mandate car pooling for business/schools/gov, set freeway limit to 60km/hr, and tax inefficient cars with War on Terror savagery. Cos we all know car freaks fund terrorism.
Posted by Liam, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 10:39:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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