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 > Forget climate change: a fossil fuel future is a fantasy > Comments

Forget climate change: a fossil fuel future is a fantasy : Comments

By Philip Machanick, published 15/1/2009

We must stop worrying about who is right and wrong in the climate change debate, and move as fast as we can to sustainable energy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Excellent article.
Battery cars will take over when they perform better and are more convenient, not before. (No coercion needed Diocletian!) The recent oil shock will kick-start the final push for this I think. Once mature, electric cars will make internal combustion look like steam locomotives. This is not just wishful thinking, I've been "hands on" for a while now and things are finally looking up!
Leigh. Massive scale solar plants that heat oil are operating right now in Texas. By heating oil power can be produced for hours after the sun sets. Computer controlled grids (unlike the 19th century rubbish we run now) will enable load balancing despite the coal lobby cry of "base load must be coal/nukes". Cost per Kilowatt is comparable to coal without any subsidies. Technology is not really the issue: investment and clear government policy is, as is the FUD created by the industries that our society currently relies on.
Sadly, we are probably dependent on the likes of "BP". Hopefully "Beyond Petroleum" is more then just a cute marketing slogan.
Posted by Ozandy, Friday, 16 January 2009 8:36:26 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
Diocletian, correct me if I'm wrong, but you come across as one of those long-haired hippies with an arts degree in a useless subject, who never take a bath, and who distrust anyone who knows the difference between a limited slip differential and a differential equation :)

To your argument: "we" are the same mugs who are spending up to $10-billion dollars of our money a year (various calculations e.g. see http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/public-purse-props-up-fossil-fuel-industries/2007/05/07/1178390228019.html and http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf) courtesy our government to prop up fossil fuels in various subsidies that make neither economic nor environmental sense.

Consider the car. Cash handouts to keep nonviable factories going. Roads are heavily subsidized. The perverse fringe benefits tax system where you pay MORE tax if you use your car LESS. In Brisbane, the Greens proposal to spend $3-billion on light rail is scoffed at by the big parties -- who are spending over $2-billion dollars on EACH of several road tunnels. These tunnels will not get close to cost recovery even with a toll higher than the train fare over a similar distance.

So a simple answer to your question: "we" are already spending the money I would like to see spent, but on technologies of the past, not the future.

If you think you are living in a pristine free market economy with no government intervention, dream on.
Posted by PhilipM, Friday, 16 January 2009 10:09:15 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
Come now Philip M there is no need for silly abuse. As for Coorandgreeny .. no, sorry, the stuff you read about the good coal being totally mined out would apply only to certain deposits. All attempts to put global limits on specific resources is so difficult that no-one bothers these days.. even if what you say about that type of coal is true it is only marginally relevent.. some good sources of info are the International Energy Association, the US Department of Commerce and Energy and, locally, ABARE.. ( www.abare.gov.au) which produces an excellent resources quarterly
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 16 January 2009 11:08:45 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
Thanks, Curmudgeon. I'm sure Diocletian has a sense of humour. He must have to use that pseudonym with his views, given that the eponymous Roman emperor created "largest and most bureaucratic government in the history of the empire" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian).

I know about those resources. The International Energy Association is not that far off agreement with me (http://www.iea.org/textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=275).

Surely you must agree that the sound policy approach when faced with a reasonably high probability of a massive change in the energy economy is to start on the things that are easy to change, and invest in R&D for the ones that aren't?

I never ceases to amaze me how inefficient energy use is in this country. You can walk around the centre of Brisbane in air-conditioned comfort IN THE STREETS because buildings have gaping portals instead of double doors as is done e.g. in the US. Spending billions on tunnels when you could do good public transport for less seems to me particularly short-sighted.
Posted by PhilipM, Friday, 16 January 2009 3:30:21 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
I thoroughly agree with the inefficient energy use. I'm sure that's right. And we should not be wasteful.

But, no, there is no forseeable end to the use of fossil fuels. If you saw any limit given by the US energy people its probably simply a short hand way to refer to known reserves, and unconnected with any possible date those reserves might run out. Go back in 10 years and the figure will be the same or larger.
Now there must be a limit somewhere but the interaction between price-reserves-technology-demand-supply-infrastructure and resource substitution is so complex that any sort of forecast is nearly impossible. All you can really say is that prices for all commodities have been falling steadily, in real terms, for decades - wild swings aside - and I believe that applies to oil as well..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 16 January 2009 4:19:07 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
Curmudgeon, oil is probably at something of an inflation-adjusted low right now but the previous spike was a record even allowing for inflation by about 50% over the last spike. You can't take a recession-driven price drop as indicative of a long-term trend (even if you don't believe the recession was influenced by energy prices, a rapid decline in economic activity has collapsed the energy market).

I've found plenty of (sometimes expert) opinions that supply is becoming harder, and that price volatility is to be expected even without supply problems. Why would you want to rely on a commodity with either of those problems, let alone both. Here are a few articles (not requiring subscriptions to read). Would you care to share your more optimistic sources? Thanks.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3272
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1153749#
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6153.html
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/mckillop/2008/0421.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2008analysispapers/woppt.html
Posted by PhilipM, Sunday, 18 January 2009 7:56:40 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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