The Forum > Article Comments > Australia’s future energy security > Comments
Australia’s future energy security : Comments
By Cameron Leckie, published 25/6/2009A realistic appraisal of Australia’s liquid fuel security would encourage policies to reduce oil dependency and maintain economic prosperity.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 25 June 2009 10:00:46 AM
| |
The most concerning aspect of Cameron's review of the liquid fuels part of the NESA report is the impact it may have on the electricity part of the same report. If the solution to the oil crisis turns out to be electric vehicles this could have a significant impact on the demand for electricity,
An average family with two electric cars recharging at home will increase their electricity use by 50%. I doubt this has been factored into the NESA report. I have several other concerns about the NESA assessment of security of electricity supply given the drive for early adoption of renewable energy. Perhaps I will prepare a similar critic to Cameron's looking at electricity adequacy and reliability out to 2023. Posted by Martin N, Thursday, 25 June 2009 11:36:55 AM
| |
Peak oil again - as much as I admire the author's persistance in submitting these articles if he wants to make himself useful in looking at the future of oil supplies there are a few points he could address.
Most of the hand wringing over peak oil relies in two points - firstly the assumption that only a set fraction of teh oil reserves can be extracted. A lot is left in the ground as unrecoverable. It was my impression that this assumption got knocked over recently or was it? I regret I only saw the article in passing and thought so much for peak oil, but perhaps the author could enlighten us? Secondly: that the major alternative sources of oil, that is shale oil and oil sands, will remain expensive. Again, I am under the impression that assumption took an enormous hit recently with a breakthrough that unlocked oil reserves one step up in difficulty from the oil sands that the Canadians recently started extracting so successfully. So come along Cameron. Instead of all this endless guff about oil reserves running out - why don't you turn your attention to developments in alternative oil sources and extraction technology. Posted by curmudgeonathome, Thursday, 25 June 2009 7:58:41 PM
| |
Hi Taswegian, unfortunately the time scale to ramp up any alternative to our current oil dependent system will take decades, simply due to the scale of our sunk investment in the current system. Both the energy make up and vehicle fleet that we have now will be essentially the same in 2012 - 2014 and for a lot longer than that. That is why it is so important that we start mitigation as soon as possible, the oil shocks of the 1970s would have been a good time to start.
Hi Martin N, I would be interested in seeing a similiar article on the electricity supply side and you raise an interesting point about the impact of electric vehicles on the electricity grid. It seems to me that so many of the so called solutions to our energy problems only cause or exacerbate other problems. The only real solution to our energy problems in my view is to use less. curmudgeonathome, I don't think you understand what PO is about, it is not about reserves it is about flow rates. Because we developed the largest, easiest to produce oil first, much of what is left is harder to extract, harder to process and costlier, both on an energy and financial basis. Hence why we are interested in deep water, tar sands and coal to liquids. There is much peer reviewed material, published in journals such as Energy Policy, that support this view. See http://www.peakoil.net/publications/peer-reviewed-articles for a list. Posted by leckos, Thursday, 25 June 2009 8:54:24 PM
| |
Leckos - sorry but you didn't get what I was saying at all. I know quite well about cost and flow rates - been living with it for some time. I was suggesting how the author might put out a useful article instead of more of the same when, clearly, the peak is no where in sight - albeit with a greater proportion of the oil supply coming from non-conventional sources.
As for oil becoming more expensive and more difficult to obtain this was the main point made by Campbell et al when they first forecast the peak oil target of 2008. Their main point was not that oil would run out but that the transition between easy-lift and unconventional oil sources would cause dislocation. However, the point about the Canadian oil sands reserves is that they were able to extract the stuff at a cost comparable with conventional easy lift oil. There seems to be other break throughs since then. What would be good is some sort of analysis of costs of the new breakthroughs, and what it might mean for future supplies. That article I would take seriously. Posted by curmudgeonathome, Friday, 26 June 2009 11:06:42 AM
| |
curmudgeonathome, the aim of this article is to suggest that the Government's assessment of our liquid fuel security is flawed as it fails to consider some rather important factors. It is not to predict the timing of the peak. The reason being that policy and investment decisions will be made from the NESA. For example Anthony Albanese is talking about building the second airport at Sydney and we still put far more into roads than public transport.
I don't know where you get your information from, but the data from agencies such as the IEA, EIA and the academic literature provided in the link in my previous post suggest that unconventional oil will only replace a small percentage of crude (For example, Canada's tar sands are unlikely to be able to replace declines from North America and the North Sea - hardly a solution to peak oil). Where do you get your figures on the tar sands being capable of produced at the same price as conventional oil? Most analysis that I have read states that US$70 - 90 a barrel is required to make tar sands profitable, hence why billions worth of oil sands projects have been delayed or cancelled as part of the GFC. And as far as the peak not being in sight, why is it that despite the run up in prices over the last five years to all time highs, why did oil production not continue expanding over the same time? My money is on July 2008 being the all time production peak due to depletion from existing fields, falling discovery rates and insufficient investment. Posted by leckos, Saturday, 27 June 2009 6:30:23 AM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Perhaps this will free up enough liquid fuel for aviation and dual fuel vehicles as compressed gas filling stations increase in number. Note the gas will be mainly methane not propane as in LPG. Cost will force many interstate trips to be made by train rather than plane or car. Meanwhile the oil price volatility like $US147 to $37 per barrel in one year will send false signals. It would be nice if the government smoothed the way for a transition from oil rather than a last minute scramble.