Last time I checked, Australia in fact had huge amounts of
gas available from the NW shelf. Untapped developments such
as Gorgon, Pluto etc, mean that these volumes will only
increase, but to develop them and invest billions of $, companies
want commitment from customers, which is fair enough.

So Chinese, Korean and Japanese customers are snapping up
these contracts of supply for the future. Where are Eastern
States motorists, who are concerned about energy?

Clearly nowhere, as short term they prefer the convenience
of petrol versus gas. Should/if peak oil cuts in and upsets
these convenient supplies, they will surely scream blue murder
as to why we are exporting the stuff.

If you guys want energy commitment for your vehicles, what
about making a commitment to the companies risking everything?
A guarantee of purchase will mean a guarantee to supply for
many years to come, right here, from our very own gas wells.

Peak oil won't even matter...

commuter,

Biofuels certainly can't meet "business-as-usual" demand increases. But doom-and-gloom stories *all* look at this big gap between projected demand and anticipated supply and say "Help!" It's just silly. Demand *cannot* exceed total supply, so the gap is nonexistent. If the limits to supply are real (they are) then they limit demand also, through high prices or by better, more well-managed means. Any well-managed scenario would see demand for petroleum decline a little faster than the actual production capacity declines. Remember eg. France has only 20% the per capita petroleum demand of the USA or Australia.

Even first-generation liquid biofuels are efficient when done right; several countries produce them cheaper than petrol. Agricultural subsidies make all sorts of inefficient investments viable. Next to paying farmers not to produce, even US grain-fed ethanol is money well-spent!

cjwirth,

you peakoilassociates are unconscionably pessimistic. Not only are the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2003 estimates of the limits to renewable energy unduly low (perhaps merely anachronistic), they are interpreted in the analysis (pp. 16-18) with astonishingly silly numerical shenangians. The analysis *completely* neglects the possibility of reducing demand for electricity, liquid and gas fuels with end-use-efficiency, cogeneration, demand management and yes, high prices.

"All alternative liquid energy sources combined could yield at most the equivalent of a few million barrels of oil per day."

When exactly does that hold true? *Now*, with petroleum at the peak of its production (just shy of a hundred million barrels of oil per day), liquid biofuel production is already over one million barrels per day; this is *before* any of the really cheap techniques have been commercialised and before any of the countries (save Brazil) with the most advantagous conditions have begun production in earnest. Australia's efforts so far are just dabbling. Bushfires are wasted biofuels.

With concurent and easily-achievable demand reductions, and more realistic estimates for renewable energy including bioenergy from other sources and techniques than those surveyed, the supply of energy from renewable sources as a proportion of total supply can increase very quickly. It will be a long time before it needs to reach 100%.

Commuter,

You are completely correct that I should have stated "it is now highly unlikely that production levels can be raised .." rather than "it will take a minor miracle to raise production .." which is effectively saying it's impossible. It isn't impossible, it's just highly unlikely.

You are also correct in saying that PO is not the crucial issue but when demand outstrips supply. By simple logic demand cannot exceed supply and demand destruction must occur. The problem is that demand destruction is economically devastating.

"Mr Rudd's government is certainly well aware of it." - are they? It's a question I have been studying for a while. I think that they may really believe that the market will sort it out.

Xoddam,
I should have put the development of renewables ahead of coal to liquids (CTL). In fact, the only reason I put in CTL at all is that desperate times call for desparate measures. In the full version of the letter, I do stipulate that CTL should only be done if accompanied by CO2 capture and storage. However, this is unproven and decades away. Also CTL would allow us to continue using high carbon emission transport fuel. I made a mistake in advocating CTL.

Biofuels are an abomination! We will very soon be unable to feed the ravenous hordes of planet earth and biofuels directly attack our ability to do so. Also, vast amounts of habitat is already being destroyed to grow them and only a ridiculously small part of our fuel needs could come from them anyway.

I never denied their were alternative ways of providing our transport needs -in fact that is what I am adocating. The Hirsch report http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=44&size_code=Doc points out , that we require decades to roll out the measures needed to deal with PO if we are to avoid an economic distaster. The problem is not that there are no solutions, but that there is now no time to implement them.

I stand by what I say about the unmanagability of intermittent generating sources. For further reading see my comments here: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2229&PHPSESSID=047110ff947461911a0e33b74b5acfa

commuter,
have you not heard of the solar car race from one end of this great continent to the other? All that needs to be done is the Rudd Government invest in R&D to make this a reality for all vehicles. Also Brazil does not need petrol for their vehicles there are a myriad of ways to move beyond oil as I said all that is needed is the political will.

*Biofuels are an abomination! We will very soon be unable to feed the ravenous hordes of planet earth *

Perhaps the ravenous hordes should be finally given access to
family planning!

Biofuels are certainly not an abomination. Why should energy from
an arab oil well be worth more then potential food energy?
There is no doubt, they will eventually compete directly. If
the Arabs want more for their oil, their cost of wheat etc will
rise accordingly.

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9811702-54.html?tag=nefd.lede

Clearly there is much money and talent being ploughed into
biomass biofuels, so I would not write them off just yet, its
very early days.

Biofuels also provide some energy security. Just don't look at them
as an answer to everything, but one of a myriad of energy solutions
of the future.

On this place, its comforting to know that I can crop 5% to a crop
like canola, use legume based N and produce enough biodiesel to
grow cereals and meat from the other 95%. You ravenous hordes should
be happy about that :)

.

The idea that there are no substitutes for oil (and for coal for that matter) is simply wrong.

The amount of energy available from renewable sources dwarfs that we currently obtain from fossil fuels (of the order of 20,000 times as much ). Its not a question of can we switch from oil, just of which are the best ways to do so.