A new additional airport for Sydney is proposed.

In most of the posts we see here, we can see where government has
failed to either grasp the nettle and do something practical, or it
wants to pretend that she'll be right Jack.
Well here is a classic;
The Federal Government called for input on a green paper on aviation.
They refused an input from the Australian Assoc for Study of Peal Oil
on the grounds that they cannot include everything.
I would have thought that fuel depletion would be rather important
input to such a document.

The White Paper on Aviation has now been published and there is not
a word about oil supply difficulty except to acknowledge a small
problem a few months back, but better organisation will fix that.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/files_white_paper/091215_Full.pdf

The Uppsala University has issued a paper on aviation and oil depletion.

http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/Aviationfuels.pdf

A lot more here; http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=838

The government is proposing that a new airport be build for Sydney.
They will be initiating a search for a suitable site.
It occurs to me that by the time a site is found and all the
environment studies are complete and then the airport construction is
finished and opened with great fanfare it will no longer be needed.
By that time only the richest people and politicians will still be
flying so the present airport will be more than is required.

It does make you wonder whether we are the subject of a gigantic leg
pull by the governments of the world.

Bazz,

Thanks for the site (sigh ) more reading.

I've had a wander through the pages I am wondering what is his point anti badgery's creek or raising the peak oil bit.The reliance on the SMH self interested sob stories worry me from an objective point.
Land grab conspiracies be damned.

I've been aware of peak oil for quite some years. I have recollection of a book being put out on it 30 years ago in which it spelt out it was imminent then.
There is a Arabic saying that come out in the 70's Which said my grand father rode a camel, My father Drove a Roles Royce my son flies a plane my grand son rides a camel.
The wisdom in that is quite profound. The generation before mine didn't/don't recognize, Something that my generation (baby boomer)toyed with but did nothing about it. This generation worry about it, God help our grand-children.

Two things jump out at me proof that the cheapest way (the underpinning of capitalism?consumerism) isn't always the best.

The second is the power big business has over the testicles of the political parties.

I'm not sure its big enough of a disaster at the moment but it's coming. One might adapt to A less CO2 lifestyle i.e. we will probably reach 2.5 degrees increase be fore people will uniformly do something.
But lessening of oil well, that will be a catastrophe that will have serious effect on our 'lifestyle'.

I not convinced its all a con, at the very least its commonsense. Never before man had a single species altered the world so dramatically, effecting environments.

Well yes examinator, they have ruled out Badgeries Creek so it will
take some time to settle on something else.
I didn't make myself clear about having our leg pulled.
I meant "they" are only pretending to not understand about peak oil
and are just playing us poor taxpayers. Fits the typecast.
If it is a conspiracy it is too well organised worldwide for our
pollies to be in on the joke.

It must cost several $Billions to build an airport, so how could they
keep all the consultants in line ? With money I suppose.
Still maybe they don't intend to ever build another airport, just
camouflage.
It would explain why they refused an ASPO submission.
What will be interesting to watch is to see if it is to be a
PP, (Public/Private) financed project.
I would say that if it is to be a public financed job there will be
no intention to build it.
They won't want anybody doing due diligence.
Ahhh, I am becoming a cynic !

I think you may be ascribing a different meaning to that which was intended, examinator.

>>There is a Arabic saying that come out in the 70's Which said my grand father rode a camel, My father Drove a Roles Royce my son flies a plane my grand son rides a camel. The wisdom in that is quite profound.<<

This is simply an adaptation of the universal awareness that maintaining financial wizardry down generations is difficult.

"Rags to rags in three generations"

http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Sayings/Quizzes/2/Rags_to_rags_in_three_generations_585.htm

There is a Chinese saying that describes the same phenomenon as:

"Wealth does not endure three generations"

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-54331367.html

None of these has the slightest acquaintance with "peak oil".

As far as the original question is concerned...

"The Future of Aviation, is there any Future at all ?"

I hope the answer is "yes", because I need to get to Melbourne in a couple of weeks, and the alternative means of transport are singularly unattractive.

Which is, of course, the fundamental challenge we face in "fixing" the problem.

Until and unless there is a genuine alternative, I am forced to use air transport. Any intelligent government would have established a high speed rail connection between key business centres, decades ago - it isn't as if the technology doesn't exist; the Japanese completed the bullet train connection between Tokyo and Osaka some fortyfive years ago.

Unfortunately, governments - aided and abetted by business interests - are reluctant to spend our taxes on infrastructure, preferring to hand it over to the private sector to screw up. The litany of corruption and gonzo economics that accompany the histories of Sydney's host of toll roads and tunnels is recent testimony to the shortsightedness and stupidity of this policy.

Regrettably, only calamity will change this attitude.

With luck, that calamity will hold off until after my Melbourne trip.

Pericles,
But is it *absolutely* necessary ? Are you sure you're not being an ecological vandal? Besides will the border police let you back? Will there be a coupe while your away? Will the state secede now that their intelligentsia has left them to their own devices? My family are all going overseas on Monday (by ship)....damn boat people. Mmmm Mass Evacuation Monday.

I've exceeded my internet level, damn those universities and You Tube 1970(reminiscing) it was a clear conspiracy to silence us don't you think?
"I love the smell of a conspiracy in the afternoon". my version of Apocalypse Now?

BTW the Arab wise saying was used to illustrate the rise and fall of oil as it was percieved, at the time. About the time that the Australia Party ran their ZPG policy. ( a well know scientist of the time wrote a book on peak oil based on known resources at the time predicting 1980's (I think).
Like I said, "we saw the problem, we protested, then we did nothing."...The eternal shame of the maturing generation. We (baby boomers) have become the people we complained about, when we were young. ;-)

The second airport sounds like the Brisbane tunnels - a civil engineering solution that ignores the other changes that are likely to take place even if peak oil is not an issue. For example:
- Software to increase the land/take-off rate at the existing airport.
- Larger average plane sizes.
- Reduced business and family travel due to improvements in Skype and video conferencing.
- Growing moral pressure to take once in a lifetime long trips instead of more frequent travel.

I've noticed a few media reports about research into alternative aircraft fuels, although this only relates to turbine engines which are reasonably flexible with fuel requirements. Piston engines can possibly be operated on ethanol or even hydrogen but I'm not aware of any cases where either has been used. In any case, alternative fuels still involve substantial carbon emissions. Whether or not the emissions issue is sufficient to force a dramatic rethink of air travel is another story. Personally I subscribe to the views of David Suzuki / James Lovelock who believe its at least thirty years too late to worry about climate change, consequently there is nothing to be gained by worrying about the relationship between carbon emissions & climate change. On the other hand, many claim that climate change is a natural event & has nothing to do with carbon emissions. Only a few brave souls hold to the view that its not too late to make a difference. Given the obvious financial interests its inconceivable that the last group woll ever achieve their goals so we may as well keep flying until the end of civilization as we know it ... somewhere between five and twenty years down the track.

kadaitcha,
In a time of depleting oil supplies, to use the small amount of
alternative liquid fuels that we will have would not be used for
aviation. They would go to food production.
It comes back to the same problem, could we afford to divert crop land
to feed our cars, aircraft etc or ourselves ?

Basically it is the scale of the problem.
I like to use this simile;
Japan uses 8 Million barrels of oil a day.
A very large tanker carries 2 Mbd.
Therefore 4 tankers have to arrive in Japan every day.
It takes about 25 days sailing time from the middle east.
Therefore there are 100 tankers en route at any time.
Therefore there are 100 tankers sailing empty back to the middle east.

This the scale for just one country.
Aviation is I think about 8% of total from memory.
How many hectares needed to grow that amount of biofuel.

Hydrogen is a no go, aside from producing it, it would require a very
large and heavy tank in the middle of the aircraft.
A 747s capacity would be about 25% of its present capacity.

Would you prefer to fly in a coal fired 747 ?
You could employ all the unemployed as stokers on the air route
to the UK.

What happened to the VFT (Very Fast Train) that was once seriously proposed and investigated as a link between Sydney and Canberra and possibly Melbourne? A lot of work went into assessing this idea but then air travel became so economically cheap that the VFT fell off the agenda. Cheap air travel is unlikely to last given increasingly global oil consumption and the inevitability of 'Peak Oil' etc. Any viable alternatives to AvGas are likely many years away and would very likely be far more economically costly. So.... why not be the 'clever country' that we once claimed to be, and invest in the sort of high-speed rail infrastructure that China is building? Apparently western European high-speed rail is rapidly displacing short-haul air travel. Even if we just did the Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne connection, we'd make a significant dent in our current use of relatively short-haul and therefore especially ineffecient air travel. But no, that would be too progressive for Australia! We'd rather build another airport and more freeways (sigh)!

As I suggested previously, turbine engines (jets) aren't particularly picky about what fuel is used, for example they would probably run on overproof rum or even scotch. Certainly ethanol or dieseline would work & virtually anything else that burns. Unlike piston engines, turbines don't need high octane rated fuel, they could even (potentially at least) run on pulverized coal dust. Licencing for aviation use is another issue but one that could be overcome if necessary. Piston engines are more problematic, only real alternative to avgas is ethanol. Your point about land use is certainly valid if we assume global population will continue to expand, however the climate change scenarios postulated by the likes of David Suzuki & James Lovelock suggest a dramatic reduction in population by way of starvation. Whether or not that transpires before we run out of fossil fuel is another question .........

Avgas is really only unleaded petrol certified for use in aircraft with internal combustion (piston) engines. This means only light aircraft like Cessna, Piper, Jabiru need alternative high octane fuels & ethanol would definitely work if it was properly handled. Contamination and / or oxidation in storage & transport is the main factor requiring avgas to be certified as aircraft fuel, hence the higher cost than unleaded fuel (currently around $1.60 per litre) Turbines are only cost effective at high altitudes, fuel consumption at under 15,000 feet (ceiling of unpressurized light aircraft) is high enough to render them unviable at present.

Commercial aircraft invariably have turbine engines which run on kerosene, mainly because its relatively cheap. Being external combustion engines, they can run OK on anything that burns, however OP Bundy or Scotch is probably a bit more expensive than most airlines can justify :) FWIW, there are small turbines available to suit light aircraft (albeit at much higher cost & with higher fuel consumption than the normal piston engines), but maybe thats something to be addressed if we do run out of fossil fuels & still wish to operate light aircraft.

Many suggestions for aviation fuels have been made but they all seem
to fall down when the real experts put in an appearance.
It would be politically untenable except for defence to have aircraft
flying around on bio fuels that were taking food out of peoples mouths.
It does, unfortunately, get down to that.

At present fuel is about 70% of an airline operating costs according
to a recent report and as the previous CEO of Qantas said at over
$100 a barrel airline's business plans fail.

We don't have high speed trains because the government deliberately
ignores peak oil, just does not want to know.
As a result they will not spend money on straightening out the
Sydney Melbourne line. That line was laid before diesel powered
earth moving machines, horses and scoops were used, so it goes around
the big hills.
They prefer roads for cars and trucks.

If the world oil production falls this year and a tightness predicted
by the IEA occurs then I give the airlines three to five years before
a large number of bankruptcies happen.
Ten, years and no commercial airlines will remain in operation.
VIP flights will all that will be seen overhead.

The unknown factor is how long we have before climate change bites. It may well be that the situation described by James Lovelock in 'The Vanishing Face of Gaia' eventuates before we run out of fossil fuels, in which case its highly unlikely that any of the major airlines will be in business anyway.

kadaitcha;
We will never actually run out of fossil fuels, it is just
that when production falls they will become too expensive to be used
like we do now. The further production falls the more expensive they
will become.
It is this rise in price that will do the airlines in.
It will be too expensive to casually fly off on a holiday or to visit
your parents. Business will find video conferencing a better deal.

If instead of a gradual increase, we get what happened in 2008 then
the airlines will collapse over a very short time.
It is no exaggeration to say that the airlines are the canary in the mine.

In the first half of 2008 24 IARTA airlines went into bankruptcy.
Swiss Air has gone, Alitalia is on drip feed. Sabena is now bankrupt.
This year JAL is now bankrupt and British Airways in in deep
financial trouble. Even Qantas is looking for a partner, hence the
change in ownership rules.

It remains to be seen how much governments will finance loss making
airlines.

I foresee the return of intercontinental travel by sea.

What timeframe applies to fossil fuels becoming economically unviable ?? Judging from the frantic scramble by virtually all car manufacturers to get battery electric cars into production its probably much closer than the sheeple realize. As you state, the backlash will certainly affect aircraft unless alternative fuels can be found. Whilst ethanol can potentially do the job for both piston & turbine engines, the viability of using increasingly scarce farmland is certainly an issue. Whatever, the wild card is just how quickly climate change will change civilization as we know it. Australia can't grow sufficient food for its existing population so if / when international suppliers are affected then it will unquestionably place more strain on our ability to survive. Ultimately the mass starvation due to inadequate food supplies will reduce populations to maybe a quarter of what we have now, but thats another can of worms.

kadaitcha,
>What timeframe applies to fossil fuels becoming economically unviable ?

Well about now !
May 2005 crude oil production peaked.
July 2008 crude oil plus all liquids peaked.
The above seems to be the consensus of significant experts.
Re bio fuels for aviation. I can't remember which fuel it was but the
temperature at altitude caused it to thicken or solidify.
This whole business seems to be full of catch 22s.

The effects of peak oil will occur much sooner than global warming.
Indeed the current financial crisis was caused by peak oil forcing
the collapse of the housing loans in the US.
Have a read of this, it is long but does cover the whole problem well.

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/40503-temporary-recession-or-the-end-of
Here is a tiny url
http://tinyurl.com/ybnhxzk

Australia produces about half of what we use, ie about 450,000 Bpd,
Our production peaked in 2000. China has had an increase year on year
of 17% and India an increase of 8% yoy.
So it is not unreasonable to expect a scramble for supply.
The IEA says a bit tight this year, so it will be interesting to watch
prices. I have a graph with the ASX, Oil price & oil production.
It is interesting to see how they track each other.
The ASX goes up with other indices indicating a recovery and the oil
price goes up with it. So I am watching the oil price and if it goes
up steeply, it will be time to jump.

kadaitcha,
I have just watched an interview on BBC World with two economic experts
from Standard Charters and UBS banks.
They are quite convinced that there will be good growth in the coming
years. Listening to them I am amazed that they can sit there and show
such ignorance.

I have noticed on TV plenty of financial experts telling us how
recovery will go on indefinitely. They talk about the present recession
just as though it is just another recession and it will soon be
business as usual.

Have a read of that link I sent you and you will see that it just
will not be possible.

The discussion to date seems to assume that technology isn't going to advance by much. However, if the claimed potential for the production of fuel from algae is actually realized then we may still be flying to holidays in 2050.

John D,
Yes, it is possible but I think unlikely.
Could they produce enough to supply the airlines ?
Would they be allowed to use it, or would it be reallocated to food
production and food transport ?

One figure I saw for algae production was that to supply Europe would
require an area the size of Ireland.
That was using ponds, if I remember but tanks might be different.
Either the Energy Bulletin or the Oil Drum has a algae production
archive on the subject.

Anyway they would have to produce 6.8 Million barrels a day and
distribute it separately. 85 Mbd x 8%.
Have you seen any production quantities quoted ?
Algae is probably one of the only viable possibilities but I just
can't see it being done on the scale required.

You may be right about the area required for Europe - but I am not sure what this means in terms of % land area. The algae option would become more attractive if it worked with saline water. There are large parts of Australia, for example, that could be converted to algae production without chewing up agricultural land.
Keep in mind too that planes are unusual in that they really do appear to need liquid fuels. Most of the other applications can be replaced by clean electricity and/or the use of bio-wastes. So the future algae area requirement for Europe might drop to less than 10% of the land area of Ireland.
In addition it is worth noting that the efficiency of planes is improving all the time. The high percentage of airline costs that are fuel related is going to put even more pressure on fuel efficiency and the move to radical designs. See, for example, http://www.gizmag.com/go/7710/

John,
I read that link, Interesting but somehow I don't think the
industry is going to have the funds for such a massive restructure.
It might be something that will keep the very rich flying but the
rest of the mob will be going by sea.

The problem is without growth, there will be no extra income to
finance loan repayments. This is what has caused the credit squeeze.
Who would lend money to airlines now ?
Hence the plane order cancellations.
Which gets us back to the proposed new additional Sydney Airport.
By the time it is built it won't be needed.
Kingsford Smith will by then be much bigger than needed.

This a classic watch this space job.

Apart from the odd yankee submarine & aircraft carrier, modern ships all run on fossil fuels, so they will be just as difficult to justify in the future as aircraft. I can't imagine it would be practical to build commercial liners with nuclear reactors, so its likely that ships as we know them will disappear around the same time as commercial aircraft. I believe it may be possible to keep light planes in the air indefinitely even with dramatically reduced space to grow crops for ethanol, but the use-by date for Boeing & Airbus products must be fast approaching. The effects of climate change are likely to hit much earlier than most realize too, putting extreme pressure on agricultural production .... maybe not far from the time when fossil fuels becone financially impractical.

kadaitcha;
Well ships are the most efficient users of fuel.
I did see a figure that compared them with trucks, but I have forgotten
what it was. I remember that it was similar to trains but better, and
trains use 1/8 the fuel per ton mile than trucks.

In any case what is wrong with wind jammers ?
The world was explored and globalisation started with them.
Which reminds me, an English naval architect was given a contract a
year or so back to design a full rigged ship.

Wind powered ships were a mere fraction of the size of contemporary passenger liners. There is no way wind powered ships could replace fossil fuelled ones given present population, usage, labour costs & time constraints, mind you that won't be a problem when the world population is down to two billion or less. One has to wonder how much life is left in big ships anyway, seems the GFC might well spell the end of such frivolity.

kadaitcha
Well you are right in one sense, there will be no need for the huge
cruising liners that we see in Sydney every week.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6086#more

That link is about a 26 mile queue of idle ships.
I was suggesting wind jammers for urgent freight and those few
passengers who will need to travel.
However I do think bio fuels could possibly support enough ships to do
the necessary voyages. There will be no call for the amount of freight
movements and passenger travel that we now experience.
In the longer term the economy will be completely reorganised and
many things we take for granted now will either be done quite
differently or not done at all.