The sun can be the energy source.
Also see
www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
For more on H2

Steve, I didn't mean petrol fumes were carcinogenic, however they've been proved to effect our nervous systems badly. I can't produce figures but have read where many in the motor industry suffer from skin and other cancers which they attribute to the constant exposure to petro-chemical products. It amazes me, but doesn't surprise me as to how blind most are to the reality an ease of real alternatives in providing our energy needs.

Taswegian, many in Tas have been using biodiesel and straight veggie oil for more than 3 decades. Canola's a very poor oil producers compared to wild radish, wattle, Jatropha and other plants. Because plants use CO 2 to grow, using oil seed solves many problems and for those interested, this is an Aus biodiesel site, http://www.biofuelsforum.com/

Ethanol, hydrogen and nuclear, requires massive infrastructure, biodiesel, requires cold pressed veggie oil, and a drum. The only problems with methanol, it's very toxic, methanol's produced from natural gas and other fossil sources. It effects the nervous system without an symptoms and can be deadly, so if possible ethanol should be used, which again's very easy to produce using a small reflux still. You can recover your ethanol (methanol) with the same still. Small amounts of ethanol (safe, non toxic) can be produced using most plants, so you have clean, environmentally renewable and sustainable fuel.

Bushbred, I remember well what happened regarding “Graincol “, its happening again with biodiesel because the elite realise they can't control it and are more interested in their profits than the future. They denounce it hoping the common slaves will continue to listen to their lies and ignore the true reality.

Fester algae is also a fine oil producer, its recovery is harder, growing its easy. With the right environment is reproduces constantly, but again it requires large areas, infrastructure and processing. Anyone who has a hectare of land, can grow enough fuel for a year as well as food and other crops, improving the environment, so is the problem ignorance, stupidity or both.

1. put commuters on electric mopeds, batteries charged by sunlight.

2. reduce population.

3. turn off airconditioning.

it's easy to fix the looming ecological disaster, but as long as the national policies are selected by politicians, it wont happen.

I thought I use one of DEMOS's suggestions to show what happens when people come out with ideas without looking at the numbers

"put commuters on electric mopeds, batteries charged by sunlight."

Fine. Let's do that. Here's an electric scooter of the kind that the commuters might be prepared to ride.

http://www.hsddc.com/english/product.htm

Its battery capacity is 576 watts. To charge this while the commuter is at work, allowing for less than optimum conditions and losses during the charging process, you're going to need something like this

http://www.suntechaustralia.com.au/product_page.php?prod_code=STA120-12

Note that it's nearly a metre and half long, two thirds of a metre wide, and weighs 12 kilograms. For each commuter one of these would have to be mounted somewhere where it's nearly horizontal and is not in the shade. You also get little change out of $1000 for one.

Now, who wants to stand up and say that that's even remotely practical? It's just not going to happen.

Sylvia.

Alchemist writes: “Wouldn't it be better rejuvenating our rural sector, increasing our industries, export markets and improving the environment at the same time. As well as reduce the cost of fuel, giving our local tourist industry a big boost. Its called rational logic, not illogical irrationality, as displayed by our current elite. But it won't happen, the idiots are too ignorant to see past the stupidity of their fatal approach.”

It is all very well for us to discuss the various methods of implementing alternative fuels sources, but it is really the politics that counts.

How do we get our government to be proactive on this stuff, and to the extent necessary to gain the smoothest possible transition out of the oil age and into the age of genuine sustainability? This is the big question.

Just about the only possibility that I can see is for Labor to embrace the sustainability groundswell that is now very substantial across the country and to set itself up as a very different alternative to the Libs, rather than a slightly less appealing imitation of them. But of course, pig trotters will evolve into wings first.

I just don’t see any point in even mentioning the Greens or Democrats, so just pretend I didn’t mention them.

And of course the incumbents have no political incentive to change very much, so they won’t.

Progressively, things will happen, but it will always be reactive, and far too little too late.

Regardless of all the great ideas that have been presented on this thread, and several others on OLO, and in various other institutions, it looks as though we are screwed…. because the political scenario simply presents a brick wall to making it happen with the magnitude and within the timeframe needed.

I would love to hear any ideas for getting around this problem.

Thumbs Down for Biofuels!

This report just out of the US maps the future for US and thus the world's shift from dependence on Oil for transpot fuel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/business/15energy.html?8br

It involves five items, none of which are the nugatory biofuel option. The emphasis is on sub $35 per barrel extraction costs.

* coal liquefaction
* shale oil extraction
* cellulose conversion to bagasse
* enhanced CO2 recovery of old oil wells
* For-real motor and oil industry R&D into fuel efficiency forced on them by national security issues.

Recent world political turmoil is sure to see a rapid take up of this change in strategy in the US and I believe also in Australia as US technology trickles down.

Additionally, with no US hurricanes so far this season and a high probability there will be none, the CO2 greenhouse warming issues are going to be far less important in the debate.

Australia has the capacity to develop these options, as well as already onboard Dry Rock Geothermal plants, without waiting for US spin offs.

Unfortunately all we have is a PM who is only interested in immigrating and workplacing Australians into gridlock and oblivion while he gets cosy with the 40% of NSW and SEQld who were born overseas in the belief that they will give him a mandate to forever rule the rest of the nation into an economic dead end that he calls "locking in future prosperity" .

What do you say Australia?

Vote the bastards out, starting with NSW Labor and ending with a convincing defeat of Howard at the November 2007 elections.

Then maybe we can face the REAL issues like oil independence and environmental security without the pain of being sold out and betrayed to overseas interests by a myopic, self centered PM.