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 only way forwards is backwards: A budget reply > Comments

The only way forwards is backwards: A budget reply : Comments

By Cameron Leckie, published 17/5/2011

australia needs a budget that halves our oil consumption over the next decade, eliminates the greater proportion of the debt currently outstanding and halves our population over the next half century or so.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Great stuff Cameron! Pity there will be so many bleaters and knockers after this comment that will try to maintain their own illusion of normality and a business-as-usual future by decrying you as a doomer. We may one day see these ideas in a budget speech but it will be in a time when there are few resources to budget and too many people begging for help - but don't believe that the bleaters and knockers will ever admit that they were wrong even then.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 10:01:10 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
"Declining marginal returns".

Humanity will continue to be constrained by the availability of those resources essential to human existence - food, water, air, shelter, energy. The shape of human civilisation will be determined accordingly. Change and adaptation will continue, even as resources become scarce or unavailable. If not, nations will become failed states, global warfare will be the norm, and the last man standing will hoard resources until they too are exhausted, and man will once again take up simple farming to survive. This wouldn't be the preferred end vision, but it may be inevitable, unless biological or geophysical mechanisms are developed to take the place of oil, gas and coal.

"Catabolic Collapse" - another way of saying "adapt, change, or die".

Agriculture is suffering with cost and availability of inputs, but its major threat is from over-specialisation - of crops, livestock and production systems.

Health Care is suffering population growth and increasing human longevity, evolution of super-bugs, and our desire to cure or treat every possible human frailty.

Energy availability is only limited by our Unwillingness to adopt alternatives to conventional systems.

Climate change is inevitable, and human and environmental outcomes will be dependent on visionary adaptation.

Instead of "... sound money must be the basis of a sustainable economy", perhaps the author should have proposed: "A sustainable economy, in terms of social, fiscal and environmental outcomes, should be the only determinant of wealth. (Manipulating monetary and banking systems is Really fiddling with periphery.) Private wealth and debt in a sustainable system will be constrained by those very factors which act to ensure that sustainability, be it legislation, law or social pressures.

Why is aviation fuel so cheap? This might be acceptable for essential transport, but appears ludicrous for touring.

Short of xenophobia, we in Oz need to adapt to internally sustainable systems, or we risk disintegration, and it will take visionary action to avoid many of us having to become Amish.

Surely the objective is to avoid failure, by staged systems overhaul, rather than awaiting enforced reconstruction?
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 8:07:57 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
Agree with your last post, Saltpetre.

A structured transition to sustainable, clean(er) technology will also create more jobs even though some jobs will be lost in mining fuels. Rather a careful transition than waiting till seas have become so acid most marine life is wiped out and the last tree felled.

Whether a person believes climate change is influenced by humans or not is no longer (if it ever was) an excuse for 'business-as-usual'. We humans like to boast about our adaptability - would rather we adapt in a rational manner than in a bun fight when resources are depleted and our environment poisoned. We know what happens to other creatures which were unable to change in times of climate change past - they provided as with a fossil record from which we can learn, but walk the earth no more.

I am not entirely happy with just a carbon tax unless it is reinvested into sustainable technology, however I prefer it to Abbott's bleating of "no more big tax" and offering no solution to our long term viability.
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 8:21:33 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
Cameron's article points up a matter which I have believed for some time.
Global warming is not the problem that should be the first focus of our concern.
If we had acted on energy much sooner then we would not have that AGW concern.

The Hirsch report pointed out that to get a smooth energy transition to
a new energy system would take 20 year from before peak oil.
As we did not start that transition it is now too late for the smooth
transition.

There is an enormous number of individual projects that need to be
undertaken to avoid a collapse in our economy.
Just one example will point up the range of adaptions that will be needed.

A crash program in the breeding of draught horses.
With diesel fuel being either too expensive or not available farmers
will need other means to plough harvest and transport.
An alternative could be steam tractors hauling by wire cultivation
machinery across the paddock. This an old and proven technology.
It was used to feed the workers in the industrial revolution.

Such farming methods will be less productive than our current system
and will result in a many times larger farming workforce.
When I have made such suggestions in conversation the reaction varies
between ridicule or a thoughtful silence.

Depending on electricity supply it may be feasible to electrify farm machinery.

Everything depends on how a complex society contracts. Some believe
that complex societies can only collapse catastrophically.
They show as an example what has happened to the Japanese motor industry
since the earthquake.

The above is just one problem that an oil declining society will face.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 23 May 2011 4:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Energy availability is only limited by our Unwillingness to adopt alternatives to conventional systems."

Not so.

Alternative energy sources are also limited by their much lower EROEI than oil based fuels.

EROEI = Energy Returned On Energy Invested.

It is exactly the same principal as you wage and resulting bank balance.

With oil based fuels we are currently on a very high energy wage and have abundant surplus energy income, once our base living costs are paid, to do other things with.

Hence our economies and societies are currently rich and diverse.

That will change dramatically once oil based fuels become scarce and exhorbitantly expensive.

Then we will be on a much lower energy wage and will have very little surplus energy income left over.

As a result our economies will become drastically reduced and simplified and will be capable of sustaining far fewer people.

Take solar and wind derived energy. All forms of solar and wind energy require unprecedented infastructure to harvest an equivlaent amount of energy contained in vastly smaller amount of oil.

I don't see how we can manufacture, implement and maintain such MASSIVE amounts of infrastructure once cheap oil is consigned to the history books.

How would you construct massive wind turbines, on any significant scale, without cheap diesel powered trucks to transport the materials and cheap diesel powered cranes to lift the massive components hundreds of metres into the air?
Posted by Mr Windy, Thursday, 26 May 2011 11:38:23 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
So true Mr Windy,
The secret of the poor performance of wind turbines
is revealed in the basic arithmetic of windmills.
The output is proportional to the cube of the windspeed.

That being so with the maximum design windspeed maximum electrical
output is achieved. However as the wind reduces the output falls in
proportion to the cube root of the windspeed change.

Because the wind blows at maximum speed for only short periods in any
time period you select the total KWHrs is always very much lower than
the maximum nameplate rating. 15% seems to be a typical output.
However all the supporting infrastructure has to be built to the
rating of maximum output, yet only 15% of maximum output is available.
This means rapid changes in output which makes network control difficult.

This is what makes windfarm electricity very expensive.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 27 May 2011 10:39:54 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
Mr Windy,

Too true, but there are two factors giving hope - potential for improving the efficiency of our energy use, particularly in energy-intensive industry; and the potential for widespread and innovative harnessing of solar energy. Solar energy collection and utilisation must be considered to be still in its infancy, and I feel certain ways will be found to make solar an extremely productive input. Geothermal and tidal or wave power may also become effective, and further tapping of hydro must be possible. With these, once the infrastructure is in place maintenance should not incur input other than from renewable sources. And finally there is thorium or uranium.

My best thought so far on how to achieve these innovations is through government collaboration with industry to plan both efficiency measures and alternatives development - employing both grants and tax concessions as incentives, on a proposal by proposal basis. Much like with the Murray-Darling, investment in efficiencies can achieve a large part of the relevant objectives.

130-150% deductability or rapid amortisation (depreciation) of capital inputs could be a massive incentive to industry, particularly if price control on outputs was also implemented - as say for electricity - and if staged efficiency targets were implemented, with penalties for non-compliance. To me, the best bang for the buck would be for government to employ project engineers to vet and oversight implementation of efficiency and innovative projects, rather than employing accountants to oversight a carbon tax.

As a measure for containing budget costs, a possibility may be for industries receiving concessions or grants to agree to repay this in future profitable years - say like a Hex, bond or term loan.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and we need visionary thinking and entrepreneurial capacity to meet the energy challenge. Solar electric and solar hot water for every home, and for offices etc should also become mandatory in future years - in my humble opinion.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 27 May 2011 1:44:07 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
Saltpetre, solar and wind energy may well be in their infancy and may be more viable in the future as they are developed further. But the fact remains they will NEVER match oil for energy density and will NEVER sustain the current global population and current consumption levels in the west.

Do you agree that evolution ALWAYS finds the most energy efficient solutions to the problems of survival?

If your answer is yes then you must agree that plants/photosynthesis is the most efficient method of harvesting the energy available in sunlight.

Large herbivores then eat the plant material and covert it to muscle power and hence beasts of burdon must therefore logically be the most efficient way that humans can harvest solar energy to run our economies. Logically solar voltaics and solar thermal cannot be any more efficient than photosynthesis and beasts of burdon.

And we all know we would never maintain the current level of economic productivity nor sustain our current populations if we had to return to beasts of burdon dominated economy. Therefore logically we will do no or little better by converting our energy systems to run on solar voltaics and wind turbines.

Therefore such conversion of our energy systems must go hand in hand with population and consumption reduction.

The reason why oil works so well is because it amounts to hundreds of thousands of years of photosynthesis condensed into a VERY small volume.

Based on the laws of thermodynamics etc, solar voltaics and wind turbines can never matich oil.
Posted by Mr Windy, Friday, 27 May 2011 4:53:06 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
"Large herbivores then eat the plant material and covert it to muscle power and hence beasts of burdon must therefore logically be the most efficient way that humans can harvest solar energy to run our economies. Logically solar voltaics and solar thermal cannot be any more efficient than photosynthesis and beasts of burdon."

Let me clarify this.

Photosynthesis and beasts of burdon may have a lower energy yield than say concentrated solar voltaics. But then by the same token the energy required to produce and maintain beasts of burdon is VERY low compared to the energy required to implement, run and maintain a concentrated solar voltaic power station.
Posted by Mr Windy, Friday, 27 May 2011 5:06:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Windy,
No matter how hard they try to develop wind power they can
never overcome the mathematical limitation of wind power.
All windfarms should be close to the Southern Ocean.
The one at Albany appears to get close to 40% output, only because of
the nature of the Southern Ocean.
Possibly the west coast of Tasmania might also be a good location.
Other possibilities would be far South America and South Africa.
Even 40% is pretty poor but at least it is a lot better than elsewhere.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 27 May 2011 5:23:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the laws of thermodynamics states that you can't get something for nothing when it comes to energy.

All forms of energy generation are simply conversion of pre-existing energy from one form to another form. So photosynthesis takes the nergy from the sun and converts it to the energy contained in the molecular bonds within a glucose molecule/cellulose polymer. Herbivores then take that glucose, break it down thus releasing the energy in the chemical bonds and covert that, in their muscles, to kinetic energy. No energy conversion process is 100% efficient and there is some loss of energy at every conversion step, e.g. as friction or heat.

Therefore there is simply no way that real time energy generation in solar voltaics can generate the same amount of energy contained within a given volume of oil, given that the energy contained in that oil is equivalent to hundreds of thousands of years of photosynthesis plus tectonic energy. At least not without an eqivalent amount of energy input through the smelting of metals, silicon and glass to produce the panels and construction of the power stations etc.

The only way that you might get closer to matching hundreds of thousands of years worth of photosynthesis in oil through solar voltaics, without massive energy inputs to produce the massive amounts of infrastructure required, would be to move the Earth closer to the sun where the solar energy is itself denser (inverse square law of energy intensity from a source)
Posted by Mr Windy, Friday, 27 May 2011 5:41:38 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
Mr Windy, I get what you are saying, particularly regarding the amount of energy required to establish solar and other infrastructure, transmission lines etc, and that oil, gas and coal are extremely concentrated energy - but of course we are going to run out of oil sometime, gas later, and coal last of all. However, photosynthesis alone has some limitations - climate variation (and uncertainty), limited cropping periods, limited arable land, limited water, limited fertiliser or soil fertility. Soil fertility is not unlimited, and must not be over-exploited or you go into a rapid downward spiral of reduced yields, reduced soil carbon - compost, humus - soil micro-organism loss, and soil erosion, etc. Livestock themselves are inefficient energy converters, but used as beasts of burden they are relatively highly efficient - a trade-off, but beneficial, yes. Also, there are trials with African antelope whose conversion efficiency is far higher than western livestock, due to their different gut flora. The trial is to see if our livestock can be adapted to using similar flora - but there may well be problems due to related digestive enzymes, etc, we'll have to wait and see. Meanwhile, there is also selective breeding, and, as a last resort, genetic engineering, and of course chooks, ducks, goats, camels and sheep are more efficient converters than cattle.

However, as soil fertility (and artificial fertiliser) is a key limitation, this may also be at risk of eventual depletion, and then we would be in real strife. This is my greatest worry.
TBC>
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 28 May 2011 2:36:41 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
Mr Windy, (Continued),

One potential I see is for aquaculture based on a phytoplankton base - marine and/or fresh water. (Where all the necessary fertiliser is going to come from is the stumbling block.) My concept is however, to use solar from a massive inland solar concentrator, with greenhouses under the mirrors, and solar desalinator (using saltwater pumped from the coast when necessary to top-up - and possibly as a means of providing fresh water to an inland or coastal city, or both), and fully climate controlled - a sort of desert country recovery plan, and maybe inland city.

Solar may not be as limited as you think. Solarinvest in Qld will install a semi-professional 60,000kwh/yr solar for $180,000, which is supposed to return around $24,000/yr from grid inputs, net, after average household use. It's not a very big setup either. Though, with state govs manipulating input credits, the maths might be risky, but output is approx 8x average household.

Bottom line: For say 70% current average Western lifestyle to be maintained great energy use efficiencies will have to be achieved in homes, business and industry, biodiesel and electric machinery as standard, large solar, geothermal etc established, and coal still burned with its emissions balanced by increased photosynthesis. Oil I think in due course will be reserved for plastics, chemicals, etc manufacture which can't be achieved using other materials.

Nonetheless, we will probably have to go nuclear eventually in the first world - with thorium being preferable to uranium, but the greatest potential must lie in Africa and South America - for food and biodiesel at least, and using heaps of manual and livestock labour, with biomass local electricity supply, and TV, Internet, fridges, air-con, all the goodies, and biodiesel cars/trucks/trains.

Of course, world population will inevitably have to reduce, but I don't see us all going back on the farm.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 28 May 2011 2:39:39 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
Saltpetre it all sounds great on a small scale.

But I really don't think you comprehend the problem of massive scale with all these alterantives you have suggested.

They won't yield enough energy to sustain our current global population at current energy consumption levels. Or we will simply lack the resources and energy to implement and maintain them on the required scale. Particularly when oil becomes scarce and uneconomic.

Perhaps you should look at this website: www.solarbythewatt.com/2009/03/05/can-solar-replace-fossil-fuels/

It might give you some comprehension of the problem of massive scale.

"For our calculations we will assume installation / construction cost for one 1MW of $5m. This is a number ($5/Wp) we think smaller than the recent historic numbers for cost to install solar capacity. But we want to factor for future falling prices of solar modules and other components and overall improving efficiency in the industry. Anyone is free to factor the $ numbers we have if they believe $7/Wp or $10Wp is a better number.

For surface area needs we will assume 200 kW per acre. With different design and technology 800kW per acre is possible but we will go with the low number on this to be on the safe side. Since 1 sq mile is 640 acres, with our assumption we will have 128 MW per sq mile."

Total Energy Consumption in the World not just Electricity: 16,000GW

To replace entirely with solar photovoltaics: $80,000 billion

Will require 125,000 sq miles of solar voltaics

An area the size of Norway, Malaysia, Finland, Germany, a bit less than Japan, a bit more than New Mexico or simply area 350×350 miles
Posted by Mr Windy, Saturday, 28 May 2011 3:14:47 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
Mr Windy,

A rethink on solar potential, and 125,000 square miles is not such a big ask, for Oz anyway. At 350x350 miles we could fit a heap of them in central Oz, so, we'd be laughing. Ok, the cost is enormous, and Oz certainly couldn't afford anything like $80 trillion dollars, but is this to supply whole world need, or just Oz? I can't see us exporting electricity to the world, but could excess production perhaps be converted to another energy form which could be easily transported? Like, say, reconstituted carbon dioxide into pelletised coal? If so, a rail line would be a boon to an inland city, and the capital could be justified by such an export.

As for logistics, a super solar concentrator facility could sustain a fair inland city, providing manpower for a huge greenhouse industry, and it's not beyond imagination for transmission of water to/from and electricity from such a facility to support a substantial coastal city as well.

Now that we see Germany closing down a number of nuclear plants, and planning to close all? by 2022? I wonder what's going to replace them?

350 miles = 563 km, x = 317,275 square km = 31.73 million Ha.

Area of Oz = 7,617,930 square kilometres, (2,941,300 sq miles) = 761.793 million Hectares = 24 solar cities worth.

Japan apparently has 27,820 km˛ under irrigation, of a total land mass of 374,744 km˛. So, they couldn't have a super solar, and will have to do something else - like burn coal and gas, + nuclear. Many others will be in the same boat.

If it were possible to convert solar energy to a concentrated easily transportable energy form, Oz could potentially be the saviour of the world (as more nuclear is shut down and gas supply runs down), and if global warming is proven to be real and a threat, the world could conceivably pay for Oz to become Solar Central.

Aquaculture capturing CO2 = food; then convert excess to biomass = export? (As previously, primary nutrient is the key.)

Just a thought.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 10:17:20 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
Saltpetre I think you are dismissing and area of solar voltaics the size of Norway as doable in Australia from the small scale universe of your house and life.

I just don't think you have ANY real comprehension of the technical and logistical difficulties involved in such a massive scheme.Or how impossible such a task would be without cheap oil derived energy and industrial power that it provides.

Remember that in the end we would have to maintain this Norway sized area without petrol and diesel, without heavy haul trucks and cranes etc.

It is not a simple matter of constructing this thing and then just sitting back reaping the benefits as you could a solar panel on your roof for 20 years or so.

For starters dust would continually settle on the solar arrays and have to be cleaned off so as to avoid effeciency loss. It is an easy matter of cleaning the solar panels on your roof (by stepping out your door and climbing a ladder), but imagine the enormous logististical task of doing this over an area the size of Norway in the out back hundreds or thousands of kilometres from city resources and man power.

Dust and rain would eventually scratch and pit the glass surface of the solar arrays which would have to be replaced periodically. Easy to do with a the array on your roof. But again consider even finding those solar arrays that need their glass case replaced in an area the size of Norway.

There is sensible optimism Saltpetre and then there is delusional optimism. And optimism over such a scheme is definitely the latter.

I am also optimistic that renewable energy can solve our energy problems in the future. But I re-iterate it will have to be combined with substantial global population reduction to be remotely practical.
Posted by Mr Windy, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 10:42:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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