In his State of the Union Address, President Bush pledged $1.2billion in funding for hydrogen cars and mentioned a ‘Healthy Forests Initiative’ focused on reducing the impact of bushfires. Speaking to the American Congress he said:
…Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest.
I urge you to pass these measures, for the good of both our environment and our economy. Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined.
In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I’m proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.
A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car — producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.
Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
A story in the Weekend Australian reporting on a British government report outlined some alternative transport scenarios for the future:
Every journey will have to be justified, and face-to-face contact with colleagues, friends and relatives will increasingly become a luxury, with most meetings taking place via three-dimensional “telepresencing”.
… Foresight, the [British] Government’s science think tank, consulted 300 transport experts when drawing up its vision of how travel will change by 2055. It concludes that the growing demand for greater personal mobility is unsustainable and based on false notions.
Congestion should be tackled by making smarter use of existing capacity rather than by building roads and other transport links.
It states: “We cannot presume that we will have cheap oil for the next 50 years, (or that) we can respond to increasing demand by building more capacity, (or that) we will continue to have the right to move as and when we please.”It proposes that people should be forced to pay the true cost of their journeys, including compensating for the environmental damage they cause. Charging for trips by the kilometre “would make people aware of the real costs of travel”.
… The report offers four scenarios for 2055, with the world’s willingness to adapt and ability to find technological solutions dictating which comes true. In the bleakest scenario, an acute oil shortage and lack of affordable alternative energy sources trigger a global depression. Economies collapse as businesses can no longer afford to move goods and people. People survive in increasingly isolated communities that have to learn to become self-sufficient, with most trips made by bicycle or horse.
The most optimistic scenario envisages that a cleaner alternative to oil is available in abundance, allowing greater globalisation to continue apace.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer – this is why I think hydrogen is favoured by the Bush administration.
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2005/11/hydrogen_cars_a.html
They fit in with the corporate model of buying a fuel at a service station.
Why pay billions of dollars constructing a whole new distribution network for hydrogen for a car that is at least 15 years away when plug in hybrids and battery electric cars are available now and use the electricity grid and current fuel distribution network.
Bit inconsistent aren’t you, Ender? Hydrogen cars will use the existing network of service stations. Hardly, paying “billions of dollars constructing a whole new distribution network”, one would think?
And electric cars will still emit Co2 from the power stations that supplied the electricity. Unless, of course, they are nuclear stations.
Indeed, it has been suggested, albeit with a dearth of hard data, that the old fashioned steam engine would actually be more energy efficient than electric cars and internal combustion because of all the energy that is used up to produce the engines that appear to be more efficient than steam. Add up the total value chain energy use and “everything old is new again”. Especially if you can arrive home from work and top up your hot water system with the excess hot water from the car’s boiler. Not a bad variation on the notion of “off-peak” hot water, don’t you think?
It certainly appears that steam from on-site wood supply would be a very cost effective competitor to highly taxed diesel (and bio-diesel) for broadacre tractor use and, possibly, interstate trucking. The main advantage being the much longer useful life of the engines and the abundance of home grown fuel.
It is a very interesting place outside the square.
But is it a good idea Ender – politics aside?
Ian – “Hydrogen cars will use the existing network of service stations”
However a completely new transportation of hydrogen network will have to be consructed to deliver hydrogen to the service stations. Also the service stations will have to extensively modified.
“And electric cars will still emit Co2 from the power stations that supplied the electricity”
Yes but even a coal powered electric car emits half the CO2 than a normal IC car. When the numbers of plug in hybrids and battery electric cars becomes large enough it will enable renewable energy to use the batteries of transport as storage allowing renewable energy to go beyond 30%. This will make the transport relatively emission free.
Why do this?
Generate electricity (lose 50%) -> make hydrogen (lose 60%) -> transport hydrogen (lose 10%) -> run fuel cell in car to generate electricity (lose 60%) -> run electric motor to propel car (lose 10%)
when you can do this:
Generate electricity (lose 50%) -> transport electricity (lose 10%) -> charge battery (lose 15%) -> run electric motor to propel car (lose 10%)
In the second scenerio ALL the steps are currently in production.
In the hydrogen scenerio these items are not in production and are at least 10 years away:
1. Transport and store hydrogen
2. Generate electricity in a practical fuel cell.
Currently hydrogen is produced fom natural gas emitting CO2.
OK Motty – fire up the well scribbled on envelope and tell me if we can sustainably power our Australian fleet on forests.
Also hydrogen may still be an issue with stratospheric ozone depletion. And the stuff leaks like crazy.
And is there enough platinum to go around for the fuel cells? Where’s Louis when you do actually need him for something? Oi Louis !
Jim – see my post. If you think that it is a good idea to go through all those steps to power an electric car in 10 or 15 years then go for it. However I think that it is much easier to start now with viable plug in hybrids like this one:
http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html
Who is going to pay for all this Ender? How will the current system be replaced with the new?
In WWII most of the (smaller) Australian ‘fleet’ was powered by charcoal burners. Can’t find an envelope just yet but (globally)warming to the task.
rog – “Who is going to pay for all this Ender?”
We will
“How will the current system be replaced with the new?”
Incentives and taxes.
Leaving aside the issue of govt tinkering with the economy, why would the majority of voters agree to new taxes?
Some of us are smug sitting on a wood pile but what about the high risers Ian?
rog – They don’t have to agree – since when has the government had to have agreement of the populace to impose taxes 🙂
Seriously as long as there is sufficient incentives to switch from pure IC cars to plug in hybrids (PHEV) and electric cars (BEV) people not object to higher petrol prices. PHEVS can use ethanol, biodiesel or coal to liquids whose price would be held low and oil based petrol is taxed off the market. Really attractive incentives can be given to BEVs to increase their use.
If we are really smart we will do it before oil supplies are limited by supply difficulties and the price skyrockets anyway.
What we need here is a clever dick to fix the patents and some eucalyptus oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Steamer_Company
http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/
Who pays for the “incentives” Ender? (incentives = inducements = tariffs = corrruption)
Tax the tax dodging right !
Flat tax of 20% – no deductions, no negative gearing, no exceptions
But the British population isn’t growing!!!!
What’s that smell in the air? Yep it’s the smell of new taxes coming on.
In support of Ender’s point “They fit in with the corporate model of buying a fuel at a service station.”.. ..
The potential of small-scale distributed energy generation (charge your BEV with your own solar panels?) must be a major incentive for the oil corps to be pushing for this hydrogen model to maintain their retail fuel income.
Joe, rog – apart from simply “new taxes”, what about a restructuring of taxes / incentives such that the individual tax payer doesn’t need to suffer – incentives shifted away from oil, towards EVs and good public transport?
Sounds good Richard, what area of current spending should be reduced in this tax restructure?
Nuclear interests (European and American) have paid big big bikkies to the US govmint. Pushing hydrogen supports the more nuclear, research new-breed nuclear reactor agenda AND helps the the Bush Chimp to try to win back public favour by showing he has Plan B, look I found a way to ean ourselves off wars for oil!
As for ‘Clear Skies’ that’s a famous excercise in ThinkSpeak eh? The sky is now clear to pollute as much as you want fellahs, go for it, yeeeaaaahhhwww!
FLAT taxes are spreading around the world… coming to a country near you REAL soon, just like progressive taxation once jumped from country to country. With a tax-free threshold for low-income earners: nothing is more fair or more libertarian than low, flat taxes. (Possibly a stepping stone to zero individual taxes, future taxes to be raised from consumptive activities only)
rog – “Who pays for the “incentives” Ender? (incentives = inducements = tariffs = corrruption)”
Ok if you say so. Carbon taxes, taxes on heavy vehicles and oil based petrol taxes ramping up year by year should pay for it. Ending the diesel fuel rebate should give 2 billion dollars – perhaps that fits your previous criteria. 500 million that is going to ‘clean’ coal could be diverted. So with no new taxes 2.5 billion dollars could be spent on reforming infrastucture. Add in the billion or so that the aluminium industry is subsidised by cheap electricity that we pay for could almost pay for the incentives with no new taxes.
Interesting that the ‘free’ market needs all these subsidies isn’t it.
How do we pay for it – simple hit the rich right wing who now dodge their fair share. No more deductions.
Good question rog, perhaps you have some ideas. There was some good discussion on incentives in an earlier thread:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001103.html
Incentives such as perhaps adjusting aviation fuel tax so that the cost of flying includes the “environmental cost” (discussion for another thread perhaps) – revenue from that directed to improvements to (high-speed) interstate rail infrastructure. i.e. the individual doesn’t suffer because it becomes more attractive to travel by train than plane.
Incentives such as taxing new (petrol/diesel) cars especially focussed bigtime on engine cc, and not taxing EVs – how quickly will your standard corporate Falcon/Commodore become a plug-in Prius then?
Aust could redirect some of the $8.9bn with which it currently subsidises dirty fuels.
What is Bush’s planned outcome? Bush stated a goal is to “replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025”.
Less than 24% of US oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. Canada is the biggest supplier, followed by Mexico. Persian Gulf oil amounts to around 14% of US total oil use. Bush’s grand energy initiative amounts to reducing U.S. oil consumption by 10.5% over 19 years. Well I guess it takes that long to get a new nuclear plan up and running anyway.
(Numbers nicked from Grist)
For city driving the electric car might do ok if you use off peak power, and renewables. For less than people spend on top of the range 4WD’s you gould get a $50K PV system + small electric car. See for example http://www.solazone.com.au/SOLPOWER.htm for a large PV system that could potentially put enough into the grid to compensate for what an EV would take out.
But then again I cannot afford even a new small conventional car so I guess, that many like me will have to wait for the 2nd hand electric car to boom, puts a big lag in any emission reduction scenario.
Once again looks like you are all wrong, the poor forgotten consumer/taxpayer is the one who pays for the “incentives”, meanwhile the recipients of such inspired largesse will be forever grateful for such an unearned windfall.
whatyaonaboutrog?
$1.2billion
First of all I would like to thank the good doctor for her talk in Melbourne last night.
At that talk I mentioned a – somewhat tongue in cheek – suggestion I have made here and there, partly to wind up overly enthusiastic environmentalists but which happens to be scientifically sound. If you make lots of charcoal from renewable resources, then bulldoze it into waterways so it gets carried out to sea where it will sink, you sequester a lot of carbon from the biological cycle for geological periods of time. What could an honest environmentalist object to?
Of course, that’s related to the idea of charcoal burning gas generators to fuel cars. But there’s another way, in the same tongue in cheek yet intellectually sound spirit as the one above.
You just get lots of “dirty” two stroke cars like the Trabant or Wartberg on the road, then fuel them with a wood spirit/castor oil lubricant mixture. This will also sequester carbon from the burnt lubricant, as rain washes it out of the atmosphere. What’s the problem (apart, of course, from the laxative effects of the fumes)? The long term result is “good” for CO2, reduction, if you happen to think that that is a good thing. The less efficient the process the better, in fact.
“intellectually sound spirit”? Please provide medical references.
So Rog, are you saying that you like Bush’s pledge? Or is he also wrong?
Hmm, isn’t funding an incentive? So therefore following Rog’s logic: funding = corruption. And if Bush’s $1.2 billion pledge is the inspired largesse you are referring to, then the recipients of the unearned windfall are who, the oil corps? Ah right, now I understand. Rog, so you are talking about Bush being in bed with oil corps?
So, how does “you are all wrong” come into it? Is that something like Ian and Louis’s “End of story” retorts?
At this point we need a real economist. Perhaps Jen could find one down at the IPA who would be relatively dry.
All this talk about taxing this and incentivising (don’t you hate people who make verbs from nouns?) that makes me think of Europe’s stagnating economies. Given our open and resource-based economy, this seems like a recipe for closing hospitals and increasing class sizes at your local state school. But then only people who don’t need an education go to state schools, so we need not worry about that.
Some examples taken at from the above comments:
1. Remove the rebate on diesel. This rebate is the return of a tax imposed upon road users to pay for road infrastructure. Why should a miner or farmer who uses the diesel for an off-road purpose be required to pay a tax to fund roads? To cancel the rebate would in fact be the imposition of a new and unjustified tax. It would also add to the cost of electricity via the coal mine.
2. Taxes on business inputs dramatically reduce our competitive position internationally.
With Queensland and WA providing about two thirds of the nation’s income, and a large slab of that coming from mining, Brazil would be only too happy to see us put a tax on mining costs.
3. Taxing fuel that goes through a farm tractor or header means you will have more rural decline as more farmers succumb to the cost-price squeeze. If you think the agricultural landscape has environmental problems now, just wait until large slabs of it become uneconomic and the custodains walk off. More cost for the tax payer. Good thing the tax coffers are bottomless (where does it all come from anyway?).
4. Why is everyone so dark about heavy transport? How do you think your wheaties got to the supermarket? Just because you once got a fright from a triple trailer road train doesn’t make truckers some sort of enemy. Why add more tax to a service that keeps you in the style to which you have become accustomed?
5. Taxing personal transport and it’s inputs also adds to many business costs. Not all vehicles are things of recreation. I don’t use a lovely little Prius for my work because if I put the load on it that I carry on my ideologically unsound one tonne ute, the wheels would buckle. I’m not alone; the roads are full of light commercial vehicles.
6. The only people who are serviced by public transport are those who work in the CBD because the system runs primarily on the more viable radial routes. My son-in-law lives 30 minutes from work. It would take him about two hours to make that journey via the CBD on public transport, so he drives, as do most people. If the public transport grid was so fine that the commoners in the suburbs could commute with public transport, the economic and environmental burden of all that infrastructure would close more hospitals and add another 5 kids to every class. It also wouldn’t get your kids to school or do the weekly shopping trip (yeah yeah, I should shop at the local deli and use my bike, but that was 50 years ago).
7. I suspect this high-density-urban-development and live-close-to-your-work is strictly for academics who have secure positions at universities near suburbs they like to live in. Most people change jobs frequently, work in many different localities in their life and wouldn’t want to live within walking distance of their work place.
8. Let’s say I drive to work in a Prius. Now I want to indulge in my (also hypothetical) passion for long road trips with a boat or a caravan, or remote trips across the Gunbarrel Highway, or up the Gibb River Road. My Prius is like nipples on a boar pig at this point, so I buy a Landcruiser or a Patrol. Tsk tsk. Now do I sell the Prius and use the Landy for commuting? Yes, because I want to do another trip like that next year and set up the car a bit better next time. Now along comes a facist social engineer who gives me gratuitous advice about my choice of life style. Said FSE then runs for public office. Do I vote for him/her? Hmm, tough one that. You have to work with the people you’ve got. My social stratum takes its holidays as road trips most of the time. There’s a lot of us, and not many of them who leave the Prius at the airport while they holiday overseas.
I actually believe in a certain level of intervention and Keynsian economics, but I think people need to get a bit of a grip sometimes. An economy is not just a matter of tax the buggery out of people not like us and give it to people we like or approve of. Taxing and redistributing, or churning, has its place but it’s very inefficient.
Boxer who above said remove the rebate on diesel? The ‘examples’ you claim to take from above comments aren’t representative of the comments above.
We can view all taxes as disincentives and inefficiencies but there need to be some taxes ergo someone has to pay. Why tax employment, do we want to discourage labour? No labour tax = more disposable income = more trade. Yes, taxes can create inefficiencies. So do corporate donations to lobby groups and political parties. And if we want to minimise government because it’s an inefficient bureaucracy, well what about the far more pervasive problem of corporate bureaucracy? Large corporations flex their muscles to manipulate markets, and they gobble up competitors and vertical chains to internalise competition, but competition is good for efficiency. Where are the market signals in internalised transactions? If efficiency is our concern, let’s not restrict ourselves to taxes.
Do we, as a society, want to move towards the US model with high social and income inequality, the lower end of the scale being stuck there and unable to afford the private educations of which Boxer boasts. From today’s Crikey:
“The fear and sycophancy that Howard and his Antipodean neoconservatives have promoted since coming to power almost a decade ago have put paid to Australia’s tenuous self-regard as ‘the land of fair go,'” says John Pilger in The New Statesman. Like Bush’s America, “Howard’s Australia is not so much a democracy as a plutocracy,” where the big end of town governs not just for themselves but for everyone else as well. Doesn’t Australia remember it once cradled the world’s first Labor party?; was first to provide a legislated minimum wage?; an eight hour working day? and maternity leave? These things are barely mentioned in Howard’s Australia, says Pilger. “Using acolytes in the press, the government has attacked institutions, such as the National Museum, and historians who dare to remind Australians of their true past and present.” Australia was the lucky country, but not any more.
btw, I do dislike the practice, but no I don’t “hate people who make verbs from nouns”.
Using government incentives to direct technological development.
Let’s say we have a problem, for example, we need a renewable source of energy for transport. It’s a complex problem and will take many years to solve. There are many alternative solutions proposed by many parties, all with their own vested interests. There are two important laws which come into play.
The Law of Democracy, where any fool is entitled to be heard.
Government cannot afford to pick a winner or winners from the many alternatives and support it or them with incentives or other non-commercial advantages, because those parties who miss out will run a campaign accusing the Minister responsible of favouritism (e.g. the ethanol debacle of a couple of years ago). So every proposed solution to the problem, worthy and crack-pot alike, is entitled to equal support. After all, it’s almost inevitable that if you attach yourself to an idea, then you entangle your personal ego in that idea. So politicians need to learn how to pick options that win the next election, or don’t pick any option at all. The net result is that the available resources are dissipated and there is considerable risk that nobody makes any significant progress.
The Law of Short Attention Spans
Sometimes there are only a very few prospective solutions, so it is possible to focus the government’s attention on a realistic number of solutions, perhaps two. But no matter what the situation, any solution that takes more than about ten years to bring to fruition on a foundation of government subsidy/incentive will fail.
(It may be argued that any solution with a serious prospect of success should stand up within a decade, but that is overly simplistic. It ignores the fact that many of the technologies we now take for granted have taken many decades of evolutionary development, and a change in fundamental strategy (for example changing from liquid hydrocarbon fuels to hydrogen) may involve fundamental shifts in the technology of resource production, the infrastructure for the resource distribution, and the market (e.g. changing over the nations vehicle fleet to the new fuel). Fundamental strategic changes take parts of a century, not a few years.)
The reasons for the Law of Short Attention Spans are many, but they include
(a) The nature of politics, which means a new idea always attracts more attention to its proponent than an idea that was an election topic ten years ago. The ability of an idea to maintain political support bears no relationship to the worthiness of that idea. New is good, old is boring at election time.
(b) A solution that is successfully promoted in a political arena (and which hence attracts government support) is only going to last as long as the few key people who initially promote the solution. To get a proposal adopted by Cabinet requires people with influence and they are normally in their fifties. After their proposal is adopted, they work hard for the rest of their lives promoting their solution and maintaining the support from government, but eventually they retire, often exhausted. At this point the idea withers. The key influence here is human longevity, which is completely irrelevant to a problem such as transport fuel supply.
(c) Social behaviour seems to run in cycles, so no matter how dire or persistent the problem is, we do not maintain a collective interest in it. The decade of landcare has gone and none of the problems have gone away or been solved and public interest is indetectable. It’s only food, why worry, there’s plenty in the supermarket. No one can count of perpetual public support for their idea because these collective attitudes are merely fashions.
So where do real solutions come from? The market place – only the market can persist, by its very nature of continual evolution and adaptation, long enough to solve a major problem. It pays its own way and feeds off our primal desires for convenience and consumption. All public policy can do is nudge things a little from the flank. Any solution to the problems of transport energy will be a derivation of current practice. The source of hydrocarbon fuels will change, but in 2050, we will still be filling our cars (well, my kids and their offspring will be anyway) at the local service station and the cars will have internal combustion engines. And I think there are several ways this can be achieved with renewable resources. No need to despair, but we do need to be clever.
Boxer, it sounds like you’re content to sit on your hands and let things be, the way they are – no change necessary. You’re happy with your HJ ute, happy with the taxes you pay/don’t pay, happy to allow (alleged) climate disruption to continue unabated, happy that the government is doing a good job, just trust them, they know what they are doing, “get a grip”, pull yourself together you silly urban people, hospitals will be closed (??!?) if you meddle with taxes, and so on.
Phah! You don’t want any hydrogen fuelcell/battery in your ute do you Boxer, just a good old fashioned petrol V8. So, back to the thread. By crikey, even Bush is talking up the need to “promote energy efficiency and conservation” – Ender’s essay is a pretty good assessment that Bush is still an oil man though.
Thinksy
Diesel rebate – Ender 8:15pm
I agree that taxes and government inefficiency are not the only concerns. It’s just that the solutions to this problem are not likely to be solved by substantial government intervention, in my experience.
My crack about state schools was sarcasm: I think a properly funded state school system is simple economics. If you don’t fund it properly, you fall behind as a nation.
I also have grave concerns about the new industrial relation laws and the like and I am a public servant, so I am not in the “tax is theft” brigade.
I think the new industrial relations laws are an example of naive people in the Cabinet who have never had a job at the bottom end of the ladder. They think they are reasonable caring people and everyone else is a reasonable and caring person too. Not so; some employers are barely worth a bullet. My daughter gave one of her employers a scolding for a sexually offensive remark. Strange to say, her casual hours dwindled away to nothing. No one was fired, no laws were broken, but the employer still is a moron and my daughter had to find another job.
The belief that employees can negotiate a fair arrangement with an employer as if they are equal parties is just John Howard pretending to be stupid. The further he pushes the pendulum to the right, the nastier it will become when the unions are revitalised and the swing goes the other way. Howard is just someone who promotes a free labour market but doesn’t understand its long term dynamics. But I think I’d prefer him as PM over John Pilger.
You’re right Thinksy, my old ute is to me what my next door neighbours 4×4 is to him. A hobby, and little interest and costs less to run than a current model V6 4×4 with its super efficient (?) engine.
I actually don’t mind what motor is in it very much. The old 308 is nostalgic, as the genuine aussie V8, but when it’s worn out I’m thinking of putting a Toyota 4 litre motor in it. If the market decides that some form of hydrogen fuel cell and electric motor system is the way to go, I’ll fit that in it when the Toyota motor wears out.
I maintain the principle that the market will decide though, and Bush or any other president or PM will only tinker at the margins. Public policy doesn’t have the staying power to solve this scale of problem. I hope the market gets it half right.
Sorry Richard and Thinksy, it’s late and i’ve mixed your names up. Best go to bed.
Interesting to see how this dual system of hydrogen/fossil fuels pans out. You would still have to have diesel/petrol available to supply the vast numbers of engines still operating. Plus avgas for aviation. Or if they went over to hydrogen/electric you would still need diesel for heavy machinery.
At present the govt receives ~38c/litre + GST. The switch over will mean that they will lose this revenue plus the added cost of “incentives”. Either the govt eliminates expenditure in some sectors (health, education, public transport) or they raise taxes to cover that loss. Increased taxes decreases the amount of cash to the wage earner restricting domestic spending. Loss of domestic sales reduces cashflow impacting on profit margins with the subsequent loss of productivity and jobs.
Obviously any tinkering with the economy has to be done with care so as to not harm the economy.
Well you can make diesel from biomass that you can’t eat, so my guess is that the market will opt for something along that line. Readily available market and no need to change the infrastructure. The progressive oil companies like Shell are already well along this path (market forces again), and as they and BP et al own the infrastructure up to the point of retail sale, they may have a strong influence on the outcome.
Obviously any tinkering with the climate system has to be done with care so as to not harm the climate system.
And these new energy measures will be introduced with the new tax system that will ensure the right pay their fair share of tax (which may of course be a shock for those not used to paying any). The expected windfall will more than make up for the fuel levy issues.
Boxer, fair enough.
Phil & rog,obviously any tinkering with the tax system has to be done with care so as to not harm the left.
Seriously rog, any democratically elected govt will only pursue policies that are expected to yield benefits (economic & social). Govts are introducing alternative energy policies because they’re getting pressure to do so from individual voters and from some companies who want to reduce uncertainty. Economic structural change will happen bit by bit, eg gradual adoption of new types of vehicles/energies. By making it happen bit by bit we are creating a more resilient economy – more flexible, more responsive in an uncertain future.
The market itself is getting worried about what corporations are doing with their shareholdings.
Are firms ready for climate change?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/01/news/international/investors_climate.reut/index.htm
Shareholders seek information on how prepared companies are for extreme weather events.
BTW there’s still a theme running above on a taxes-as-usual kind of model, but the tax base can be shifted (so the activity being taxed is more directly relevant to the associated incentive); plus there’s a broader range of economic policy instruments available. These can be tailored to the instrument target for max efficiency. Re: taxes and incentives, a good starting point would be to (incrementally) reduce the $8.9bn p.a. peverse subsidies into fossil fuels in Aust ($8.9bn excludes the diesel rebate). Our current tax and subsidy regime discriminates against renewable energies – an expanding market regardless that we’d be wise to participate in.
Boxer – I don’t know if you realise it but you and everyone else in the world already drives a hybrid electric car. Unless you have a crank handle on that beast of yours it goes nowhere without the electric motor and battery. In essence it is a very mild electric hybrid. The Prius has only expanded on this an enlarged the starter motor and battery so that it can run on this alone for short periods. This allows in start-stop traffic, a typical commute, for the IC motor to be off. The Prius+, the plug in one, simply expands this a bit further and allows you to travel on electric alone for about 100km and allows the battery to be charged from domestic electricity. On average commutes or shopping trips, which accounts for about 85% of average use, the IC motor may not ever be used leading to massive savings in emissions and petrol use.
Given that your current car is a hybrid already there is no technical reason why the next Landcrusier could not be a plug in hybrid. The Prius in currently the only one but Ford and Toyota are introducing hybrid SUVs.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34831/story.htm
Imagine if it was. You could have 4 electric motors in the wheels that could be independantly controlled. When you got the the Gunbarrel Highway the batteries and inverters could provide constant 240V power. An itergrated solar panel could provide ancillary power for your campsite for days or weeks.
Peak Oil is a reality. It is not a greenie plot to take away your V8. This for me showed peak oil in a nutshell.
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2005/12/a_couple_of_gra.html
The 2 graphs are actual and real oil discovery figures. We are replacing about a quarter of the oil we use despite the most modern technology and billions of dollars spent. The Tar sands cannot help use as even if Canada used half its entire output of natural gas, which is running out anyway, they think that they can deliver 5 million barrels per day by 2020. This will not even supply their own demand. Similar problems exist for all unconventional supplies. On that same page is a report by an economist that predicts a 20 year gap in oil based transport if we do not start early.
Markets alone will not do this. Free markets will make hay while the sun shines and leave us with very expensive oil and no transport capable of using alternatives. Basically we will be stuffed.
Even some economists are calling for governmant intervention:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34822/story.htm
My opionion is that governments are the only institutions that can precipitate action in advance of a problem. A market is reactive – a wise governmant can be PROACTIVE.
Finally here is a link to PLAN B.
http://www.alternet.org/story/31679/ – a plan for economic growth bases on renewables. Note the parts on China. If they had 3 cars for every 4 people they would consume 93 million barrels per day of oil alone. Current world consumption is 83 million.
Interesting blog on steam/oil/alcohol interface. Not enough numbers for this bean counter but food (wood) for thought. http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com
Wood fired steam is not an urban option because of the low value to volume ratio which would make the transport of the wood fuel to the consumer a prohibitive cost.
But as Brown points out, the advantage of steam in tractor operation is torque. A 16hp traditional steam tractor will routinely out pull a 200hp internal combustion one because of the torque differential.
And from an on-farm perspective, loading up 50 litres of diesel or 150 litres of wood chip is much of a muchness. But a tonne of diesel costs $1000 while 3 tonnes of woodchip, on farm, is only $100. (it is $180/tn FOB).
But taxes? you guys got too much time to spare?
What is of concern is that GWB has assigned $1.2B just to keep the chatterers quiet – even in the unlikely event that such a commercially viable mass produced car was developed there is absolutely no way the US will ever be energy independent.
POSTED FOR STEVE, BY JENNIFER
A relevant quote from President Bush’s State of the Union address yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
BUSH: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.
The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources. And we are on the threshold of incredible advances.
So tonight I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: We must also change how we power our automobiles.
We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass.
Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
By applying…
(APPLAUSE)
By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum- based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.
Steve
POSTED FOR STEVE, BY JENNIFER, AS HE WAS ‘DENIED ACCESS’ FOR TECHNICAL REASONS I DON’T UNDERSTAND
When you reflect that the rises in cost of oil over the last 2 years were not a result of an actual shortage more a perception of a possible shortage you do have to wonder as to who is driving the debate.. ..and who has the most to gain.. ..
hmmm, not so sure about that rog. I think there is a shortage, not in the amount of oil left, but in the capacity to supply it at the rates required. Might take a while to develop new infrastructure.
I read somewhere that people are bidding for oil out to 2010, and the prices for 2010 oil are still very high, meaning that people expect the lack of supply to continue for a while.
Countries are accumulating huge stockpiles, the US has increased its surplus and Shell are set to increase production from 3.65m barell per day to 5m bpd by 2015.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/02/03/cnshell03.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/02/03/ixcitytop.html
It may even be technically possible to synthesise organic “petrol” from a castor oil derivative, sebacic acid, or its analogues. I very much doubt if it would be economic, though.
rog – huge stockpiles do not mean pleny of oil for the future. We are not finding the new oil to replace consumption. Most of the current production is from the older fields that are using water injection etc to pump oil out as fast as possible. The are depleting at 6%. The North sea is depleting at over this at nearly 10%. New discoveries are just making up for this depletion.
So you keep saying Ender. I put it to you that you, along with myself and just about everybody else, have absolutely no idea of the actual situation.
What I and others do know is that if left alone the market will react promptly to the situation as it happens. At this point in time we know that production is running ahead of consumption and ahead of refinement capabilities. The increased $bbl is generating additional funds to sustain an increase in exploration and expansion of refining capacities. There is now a better reason to increase efficiencies in energy consumption.
The rest is conjecture.
>I put it to you that you, along with myself and just about everybody else, have absolutely no idea of the actual situation.
*grin*
That’s got me smiling Rog, comment of the day!
Rog – broadly speaking – give your international assessment of which major oil suppliers have not peaked as yet. Australia has peaked so that’s one down. USA has peaked. North Sea.
Broadly speaking Phil – currently production exceeds consumption – cant get any simpler than that.
Australia has “peaked” has it? – the ink has only just dried on the Timor deal.
rog – “I put it to you that you, along with myself and just about everybody else, have absolutely no idea of the actual situation.”
I agree. There are some people who are very aware and know some of the numbers. The North Sea figures are known and firm as are the USA and Canada. The real unknowns are the Middle East and they are more likely to be overstated. Australia peaked a year ago even with the new Timor sea discoveries that are mainly gas anyway.
New discovery information is relatively tranparent as most of the companies have to report them accurately or risk defrauding the stock market. Usually they are understated and then increase as they are exploited.
One of the supergiants Burgan in Kuwait recently peaked. Also Kuwait was shown to have about half the oil they previously stated. Finally rate of production is no indication of ultimate yield. The USA had the highest recorded oil production the year that it peaked in 1970.
I’m surprised plastics have not been associated with oil yet. With dwindling oil supply for everything the petrochemical industry will have to ramp up prices on base plastics too.
This leads me to one of Ian’s posts on wood as fuel and transport costs of wood. I suggest city folk have a good look now at their plastic use and consider what else can be used in the household.
As an old cellulose fibre worker it is obvious to me some plastics can be replaced short term directly by wood based products. However Ian; Australian logs and woodchips are currently exported by the ship load in certain states.
If our city folk want their wood around again, we as a nation must at least make ourselves that much independent of all imports. Value added wood products from overseas will also cost an arm and a leg.
Still awaiting your broad assessment Rog !
You can wait as long as you like Philthy, you obviously have an excess of time on your hands.
Changing to the 2nd person, Phil Done or whatever he like to call himself gets into a high dungeon over what he calls a “level of vulgarity” and “gratuitous abuse from an unknown source” when someone says he runs around picking up Enders undies.
Never mind Phil Dones constant stream of abuse.
So I had a look at Enders blog – my, what a rant! The language! Abuse in spades! Plus conspiracy theories to boot.
And where are Philthy’s protestations at this “level of vulgarity” and “gratuitous abuse” – nowhere.
These characters can dish it out, but they cant take. Nobody likes a sore loser.
Ian I haven’t read into steam engines very recently, but I found the idea appealing. But they claimed it could only be useful for large vehicles travelling long distances at a reasonably constant moderate-fast speed. I think you will see a proliferation of energy types, using whatever resources are on hand eg post-harvest biomass. Brazil is emerging as a leader in this regard.
rog it’s kinda pointless to argue unfettered markets will solve the problem given that the markets aren’t about to be completely liberated anyway. There are no modern day thatchers or reagans. Besides, efficient free market operations can only work well in an institutional and social environment that’s already stable – a state that developed through a mottled history. They’re unlikely to survive periods of economic and social transitions. Witness attempts to liberate developing world economies without first introducing stable formal and informal institituions. It all went pear-shaped.
Boxer made the point earlier that movements to the far right can result in a subsequent swing to the far left. In the cold-war era, western governments intervened heavily in the markets to avoid losing ground to the socialist governments that were more effective at delivering large-scale projects, particularly infrastructure, construction etc.
In an uncertain future, companies are less willing to invest large sums to develop ‘disruptive’ technologies, particularly where markets don’t yet exist and are unclear. Hence many companies are calling on govt to lead and to encourage new markets, tax shifting etc. If moderate govt intervention doesn’t create structural change, and if resource shortages (real or political)/AGW effects require sudden action, then don’t be surprised to see a sharp swing to centralised, co-ordinated control to mobilise labour and resources to address the urgent problems. (They’re already worrying about insufficient military numbers and an ageing population providing too few conscripts).
I should have said ‘There are no modern day thatchers or reagans in power’.
Taz btw, I see a lot of mention of plastics, hence a lot of drives to develop plastics from a wide range of materials. You can buy computers and other gadgets from corn-plastic, etc. I think HP were one of the leaders in this regard – first bought out a printer? i think, from plant plastic. Lots of trials going on. Lots of work with different uses of bamboo and other fast-growing grasses too.
Thinksy, whilst we dont yet have freedom on a global scale improvements are being made constantly and this is not the time to throw the towel in and fall back and embrace statism or totalitarianism.
Progress may appear to be slow but it is happening, look at the world 1901 and compare it to 2001 and review the countries that are now run by a democratic government. Is that not a good thing?
I’m not recommending that we embrace statism or totalitarianism. However, *if* you managed to get in an extreme right model with completely free markets, do you really think it would then be peaches and roses for all, for a free-market eternity? Can you be sure that such a model doesn’t create a sustained increase in income inequality?
Your comment about “global scale improvements” and “progress” (to what, by whom) doesn’t make any point at all. How does it support an argument for zero govt market involvement? Can you recommend your favourite example of liberated markets that you’d like to emulate?
rog, don’t you want entirely free markets? This is not the same thing as a democracy. In fact, you could have free markets under a (benign) dictator. Under a democracy you’re likely to see swings between different models of governance, and that may be appropriate, ie the right model for the needs of the times.
rog – “So I had a look at Enders blog – my, what a rant!”
yes it is my blog and I will say what I #$%$@& want. 🙂 Also at least I allow comments unlike some.
Rog – Mr 4×2 basher, pension day – self-made grub, school droput, and far right nut case.
I thought it was you as a sock puppet. How sick. And if its not – you are condoning the behaviour.
Rog you have no opinions – only jibes. You have no future view except to harrass and obstruct.
The Joe issue is not in the context of an exchange or an existing discussion – it is “supposedly” someone out of the blue with no context – do you go up to people in the street who you don’t know and abuse them.
In terms of Ender’s blog – did you quote what the other guy was saying, did you quote that with some persistence with a fairly abusive opponent we were able to have a fair conversation in the end. No you didn’t you.
I don’t see you being critical Ian for colourful language.
I see by your silence, you support what Louis says.
You’re not feisty – you are a gutter campaigner.
As promised Louis has gone to the trouble of transposing available climate data onto a series of easy-to-read graphs and posted on his site, instead of wasting time on gratuitous abuse you could at least acknowledge the fact.
But thats not how you play your game, is it?
Rog .. err Rogue
Easy to read graphs my foot – if you’d been to school you’d know bogus stats when you see it.
His site is full of incorrect, bogus and sophistic material. Period.
So do you fully support the climate related material on your friend’s site then? We’d love you to say yes.
I’ll help. You type the Y then the E then the S
Bush didn’t mean it!! When Bush said the goal was to “replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025” he didn’t actually mean it literally according to his energy secretary and national economic adviser. “This was purely an example,” Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. No concrete plan to “break this addiction” then.
Extracts:
Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That’s less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.
Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.
Alan Hubbard, the director of the president’s National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.
The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.
That means the new technologies could reduce America’s oil appetite by the equivalent of what we’re expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said.
“In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand . . up from 58 percent in 2004,” according to the Energy Information Administration’s 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.
Thinksy; Glad someone saw my plastic reality trap, and I luv your bamboo PC!
Everybody missed my post on the Stanley steamer and its trials.
In knocking the science on this blog I am being purely practical. I see today on our TV the boys were at again in their extreme sport of tractor pulling. When they switch to say eucalyptus oil I may get interested again. See my ref on the Stanley steamer a century ago. Those cars did an easy ton.
Please note: Most Innovation comes from a practice not science. Many of the proposals here are pure drivel, simply we don’t have the right people at the grass roots anymore.
Taxes; INDEED
In harnessing any sort of power the first hurdle is in fabricating a transducer with available technology. Basic question; what is piano wire to energy?
In years of service to research and technology few I can say few academics ever transition gracefully to commercial practice. CSIRO is at this moment in turmoil and fighting for its life section by section. They have lost technicians all over. Industry is not convinced by such a streamlined organization.
Climate science is a main causality according to Roslyn Beeby from the Canberra times today. Debatable where they fell down, but in selecting winners this Government has continued a long campaign of ridding all it’s organizations of practical people.
You get the policy we deserve.
If you want my agreement Phil you will have to furnish a convincing argument.
Hello – I now have to furnish a convincing argument that Louis is right ????
No Phil, just one that convinces me that you are right.
Well given your lack of comment on your colleague Louis’s site which contains the greatest list of stupid and idiotic comments ever assembled in the one place; it means you support and believe in that commnenary. QED.
Thats your opinion only Phil, it is not a convincing argument.
I think we’re wasting the thread’s time. Your answer says it all. Pls someone resume on topic.
Opinion only, no evidence provided, agreement not possible.
I like where Louis put global mean temperature in deg C, and CO2 at Mauna Loa in ppm on the same graph against the same scale.
This, by eye, appeared to show CO2 increasing but temp remaining flat. Louis uses this to argue that there is no relationship between CO2 and temp.
He then argued that it is somehow fixing the data to put the graphs on different scales.
Gold.
Now Steve – you’ve warned me before about get sucked into arguing with Louis ! But yes these little gems keep one going.
Yes but . . .!?
🙂
I’m not arguing with him, I’m just laughing.
After poking around on the internet, I found that as well as sebacic acid from castor oil, the fatty acids in sheep’s milk have the right length to be suitable for synthetic petrol. That would mean – if it worked – that you could synthesise petrol without heavy chemical engineering by taking a feedstock of clarified sheep’s butter, doing something similar to soap making with it to get the fatty acids, then destructively distilling them with caustic soda. This might be slightly more economic, but it’s still not serious.