OVERSEAS trips may become a once-in-lifetime experience and car travel needed to be cut by 80 per cent if we have any hope of avoiding “dangerous” climate change, experts say.
Energy experts from Monash University said the carbon emission standards recommended by the government-hired Professor Ross Garnaut would not be possible if Australia’s love affair with cars and planes continued.
Continue reading Car travel ‘cut by 80 per cent’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Oh, it’s just starting. U.S. liberal types have always been telling other people how to live, and if you don’t do it then they’ll mandate it. One day they’ll want lifetime carbon emission limits for individuals, and once you use up your limit, it’s goodbye. We can’t have humans spoiling the Earth.
I like the comment that not even a huge surge in the use of hybrid cars will help – I’d have thought that a huge surge in the production of anything would make things worse.
Sorry guys, you’ll have to walk or cycle from now on – or does that use too much energy as well?
woody – “Oh, it’s just starting. U.S. liberal types have always been telling other people how to live, and if you don’t do it then they’ll mandate it.”
So how are you going to power these freedom machines when you run out of countries to invade for oil? Or when you have used all the surplus food for ethanol?
Face it mate – the party’s over and now we have to start cleaning up. You might have to get the concept, despite what advertising has told you, that freedom is not a fossil fuelled transport device.
Don’t reckon any government can sell it. People just won’t cop it. So any mitigation attempts are politically unlikely if they affect personal liberties now assumed.
China is investing significantly in liquefying coal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/20/china.ctl?gusrc=rss&feed=science
and this proposal
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/full/climate.2008.18.html
So the report in the lead creates for the contrarians a very receptive political market and a great opportunity to kick the science as the policy response is unpalatable.
“So how are you going to power these freedom machines when you run out of countries to invade for oil?”
How does invading countries add a single drop of oil to our inventory?
“You might have to get the concept, despite what advertising has told you, that freedom is not a fossil fuelled transport device.”
What is it then?
“People just won’t cop it.”
Especially since there is absolutely no need to.
Another idiotic comment.
1) With China opening two fossil-fueled power stations per week, Australia’s carbon dioxide contribution is irrelevant.
2) Australia is car dependant. The public transport system is inadequate, and business, work and family requirements require most families to have a car [albeit smaller and more fuel efficient than currently pertaining].
Personally I am not prepared to see my living dramatically cut on the basis of a theory with very dubious foundations.
Doug – “Personally I am not prepared to see my living dramatically cut on the basis of a theory with very dubious foundations.”
So where are you going to get the oil then?
Tilo – “How does invading countries add a single drop of oil to our inventory?”
So invading and then building 14 permanent bases in Iraq that just happens to have the last of the light sweet crude had nothing to do with the continued supply of oil? Trying to get them to sign away all their oil as well was a master stroke.
“So invading and then building 14 permanent bases in Iraq that just happens to have the last of the light sweet crude had nothing to do with the continued supply of oil?”
Don’t preach. Just answer my question please. How does invading countries add a single drop of oil to our inventory?
I wonder who else, is just punch drunk with these “master” strokes.
Every time a piston fires it’s one bang less for the rest of us hey
“So where are you going to get the oil then?”
Eh, same place as always.
“Every time a piston fires it’s one bang less for the rest of us hey”
Had any trouble getting a bang lately?
Tilo – “Don’t preach. Just answer my question please. How does invading countries add a single drop of oil to our inventory?”
I will stop feeding the troll – sorry
Tilo: I’ve been too busy looking for any responses to your comments elsewhere.
I was going to mention rejects from RC i.e. late comers, however interested readers should look through this recent thread “How do we really know” etc
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/
Gavin – one-sided stuff from a Gore and Hansen fan.
“Energy experts from Monash University said the carbon emission standards recommended by the government-hired Professor Ross Garnaut [70%-90% reduction] would not be possible if Australia’s love affair with cars and planes continued”
And that’s just the easy part.
Assuming nuclear is out, practically all base load power generating plants would have to close.
All other transport, industrial and organized agricultural activity would have to stop as well, in other words the entire world population of 6.5 billion and growing fast, would have to revert to the standard of living (and social instability) now enjoyed in sub-Saharan Africa.
And all this must come about in just 40 years. Anyone over 40 will realize how short a time that is.
Can anyone in their right mind seriously contemplate that this is even a remote possibility?
Luddites! What fools these ‘educators’ be! It is to laugh! And some here give them credence! Try going outside every now and then. Learn about the real world! Sheesh!
Cheers….theoldhogger
chrisgo – “Assuming nuclear is out, practically all base load power generating plants would have to close.”
Thank goodness for that. Baseload power stations belong back in the 1890s anyway. They are far too inflexible to be a real part of the future smart energy grid.
“All other transport, industrial and organized agricultural activity would have to stop as well”
When we have geothermal, wind, solar PV, solar thermal, wave and tidal to generate electricity why would this be true? We can also gasify coal along with biomass in addition to the remaining natural gas to cut emissions to this level.
It is only luddites like yourself that think the only way to generate power is to burn things.
Try looking up “Luddite” in the dictionary.
“It is only luddites like yourself that think the only way to generate power is to burn things”
Don’t verbal me.
My question was, “can anyone in their right mind seriously contemplate ………?”
Chrisgo: Much of the major industry that we were familiar with in the post ww2 boom period has either changed dramatically or disappeared since.
Paul: It’s very interesting just who keeps on falling out the back of various wagons.
chrisgo – “My question was, “can anyone in their right mind seriously contemplate ………?””
Yes they can – we might have to be more efficient about how we use energy however it can be done.
“Chrisgo: Much of the major industry that we were familiar with in the post ww2 boom period has either changed dramatically or disappeared since”
gavin,
Power generation accounts for 50% of Australia’s CO2 emissions – that has certainly not changed or disappeared.
Agriculture accounts for 16% of emissions – that has not disappeared.
Passenger cars 8%, other transport 7%, land use change and forestry, 6%, Industrial processes 5% and the rest, the rest.
Cutting back on car and air transport, no matter how draconian, will make bu##er-all difference to Australia’s 1.5% contribution to global CO2 emissions.
And being a genuine skeptic here, “that is one who is unconvinced either way”, I think the notion of cutting private car and air travel by 80% is ideologically driven drivel from idle academic minds.
[Doug – “Personally I am not prepared to see my living dramatically cut on the basis of a theory with very dubious foundations.”
So where are you going to get the oil then?
Posted by: Ender at February 29, 2008 12:16 PM]
The world is not short of oil – it is short of cheap oil.
For what it is worth, Victoria is sitting on what may be the largest oilfield on the planet – called the Latrobe Brown coal Field. The size of this resource has never been delineated, but it amounts to at least several hundred billion tons.
If you heat this in vacuum, high grade light oil boils off. As far as I can see, everything you can do to Albertan Tar Sands you can do to brown coal, except much cheaper.
One of these days, the Victorian Government will wake up and do something about this.
“The Latrobe Valley coal seams are up to 330 m thick and are made up of 4 main seams, separated by thin sand and clay beds”.
The total brown coal resource in the Latrobe Valley is estimated to be 394,000 million tonnes, with an estimated useable brown coal reserve of 50,000 million tonnes
Victorian brown coal R & D
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/dpinenergy.nsf/LinkView/02C73866B10B9510CA2572BB000D73CAAFE5D9442E22210ACA2572BB00096717#low
“I will stop feeding the troll – sorry”
Thank you for admitting that invading countries hasn’t added a single drop of oil to the US inventory and that your initial comment was idiotic.
“however interested readers should look through this recent thread “How do we really know” etc”
Ah, thanks. I didn’t realize that I had a response – since it came 8 days after my post. Interesting response. First part was, your questions have been answered on realclimate – untrue. The respondent obviously didn’t understand the questions or the nature of the debate. For example, he doesn’t understand how Linah Ababneh’s bristlecone tree ring series plays into the temperature reconstruction debate. And neither does real climate. And neither do you. Second part was – scientists voted and decided that there was an AGW problem. Unfortunately I don’t believe in science by vote. But even in that area, you can go to Roger Pielke’s blog, where he did a survey, and see that there is a sizeable minority that disagree.
“For what it is worth, Victoria is sitting on what may be the largest oilfield on the planet – called the Latrobe Brown coal Field. The size of this resource has never been delineated, but it amounts to at least several hundred billion tons.”
And the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah have shale oil reserves equal to all the oil in the middle east. Extraction cost – between 13 and 30 dollars per barrel.
As the two academics in question work at the “Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering” does anyone think it possible that they are just pointing out how ridiculous the Garnaut targets are? If what they say is done they’ll be out of jobs as quite obviously their department can be abolished.
Take a look at the big banner at the top of this page: http://www.lanl.gov/
Just add energy. When the average punter is told he has a choice of no cars, no air travel or both in abundant quantities as along as we build lots of nukes, I think there might be a wholesale conversion to nuclear energy. No, Ender, your toy energy sources won’t fill in, solar thermal for example requires large quantities of water to keep the mirrors clean. Pity there isn’t much where the solar thermal plants will get the most insolation.(apart from problems with the plant catching fire – see Barstow).
As usual, government and flunkies like Garnaut have it wrong. Five year plans in the old Soviet Union weren’t exactly a great success, does anyone seriously expect a 42 year plan to work?
“As usual, government and flunkies like Garnaut have it wrong. Five year plans in the old Soviet Union weren’t exactly a great success, does anyone seriously expect a 42 year plan to work?”
The problem is that left wing governments seem to believe that they can shrink the economy while at the same time continuing to grow government. They don’t seem to realize that without a robust economy there are no taxes to collect to fund all of the utopian projects that they have in mind.
No problem ,Tilo. They just borrow money.
Doug Lavers – “For what it is worth, Victoria is sitting on what may be the largest oilfield on the planet – called the Latrobe Brown coal Field. The size of this resource has never been delineated, but it amounts to at least several hundred billion tons.”
And how much CO2 do you want to put into the atmosphere?
If you heat this in vacuum, high grade light oil boils off. As far as I can see, everything you can do to Albertan Tar Sands you can do to brown coal, except much cheaper.”
What do you heat it with? If you are going to use brown coal then you emit CO2 heating the coal and then also emit CO2 burning the liquids in whatever you use it in. You also lower the Energy Return down to next to nothing while increasing the problems of greenhouse emissions.
Why not change? Electric cars, both plug in hybrids and battery electric cars, can provide a vast amount of energy storage to help the electricity grid overcome peaks and troughs in supply. They are also vastly more efficient that any Internal Combustion engine. Even running an electric car from electricity from brown coal emits half the CO2 than an IC car.
Plug in hybrids involve no compromises in range or performance. Battery electric cars today have more than enough range for daily use. Based on studies almost everywhere 90% of car trips are under 100km.
Finally even though the brown coal resource looks large if you are using it to heat the coal and using it as feedstock it will very quickly deplete under ever rising demand.
Nukes, Ender.
Lots and lots of nukes to heat the brown coal.
Generate electricity and use the waste heat to heat the brown coal to produce liquid fuels. Win, win!
“And how much CO2 do you want to put into the atmosphere?”
I would say about 600 PPM. The plants seem to love it there.
“Finally even though the brown coal resource looks large if you are using it to heat the coal and using it as feedstock it will very quickly deplete under ever rising demand.”
No, there will still be plenty of coal. Of course nuclear is still the best long term alternative.
Don’t know the details of coal, but with shale oil you can take the remains, after you have heated them to get the oil out, and use those remains to heat the next batch of fresh material. They still contain enough energy to do that.
Tilo – “I would say about 600 PPM. The plants seem to love it there.”
So your plan is to burn coal until it gets to 600ppm and then stop? What is the basis for you determining that 600ppm is OK for the climate?
“No, there will still be plenty of coal. Of course nuclear is still the best long term alternative.”
No there won’t. Replacing depleting oil with coal to liquids and maintaining current growth, because your model suggests that there is nothing wrong with emissions growth, results in Peak Coal about 2046. Do the maths – every resource no matter how large gets really small with exponential growth.
I agree Tilo, Iran thinks nuclear is the best option too. So I guess you fully support the Republic of Iran in its quest for safe and clean nuclear power. I also can’t wait for you to tell me that the waste problem is solved as well.
“Don’t know the details of coal, but with shale oil you can take the remains”
No you can’t. There is not enough energy in the remains to heat the kerogen. Shale Oil has been trying to be economic for decades now. It has been ‘economic’ for the last 20 or 30 years when oil is $20 more expensive than the current price however now with oil at $102.00 per barrel it still does not cut it.
Eyrie – “Generate electricity and use the waste heat to heat the brown coal to produce liquid fuels. Win, win!”
Even assuming for a minute that I thought nuclear was a good idea why would you want to lose 80% of the energy from your nuclear reactor making liquid fuels? Nuclear power plants already generate the ideal fuel, electricity, that is reticulated to just about every house in the nation. If you have gone to the trouble of building a nuke why not build it close to population centers and simply use the electricity with 80% overall efficiency in electric cars?
Ender,
Because of the waste heat. You just run a conventional nuke to make electricity in the usual way. No reduction in electricity output at all. The problem with nukes as with any steam generator is the limited thermodynamic efficiency of the cycle. You have lots of waste heat to get rid of. Cooling towers anyone? Use the waste heat to heat the brown coal for liquid fuel and have smaller cooling towers.
This has already been thought of for the oil sands in Canada.
The power stations are already in the Latrobe Valley because it is easier to ship electricity by wire than to ship the coal. So locate the nukes there and send the liquids to the population center by pipeline.
BTW you only get at best about 35% to 40% of the total energy as electricity out of a nuke, much the same as coal plants. You can do a little better with very modern high temperature coal plants.
I’m a fan of electric cars. In a few years battery technology will likely make them quite practical. Then we’ll have to build lots of nukes to charge them using *waste* heat (what part of *waste* don’t you understand)from the nukes to generate liquid fuels for aviation and heavy transport from coal, oil sands and shale.
Oh, and I’m really glad you are so convinced of the safety of nuclear plants that you are prepared to build them close to population centers.
Eyrie – “You have lots of waste heat to get rid of. Cooling towers anyone? Use the waste heat to heat the brown coal for liquid fuel and have smaller cooling towers.”
The only problem is that the waste heat from a steam generator is not hot enough to process brown coal. It needs to be the high temp high pressure steam straight from the heat exchangers and then a small amount of electricity can be generated from the waste heat from the chemical process. You have it the wrong way round.
“So locate the nukes there and send the liquids to the population center by pipeline”
Who is going to pay for the pipline? Why would you do this. Nuclear is safe and clean therefore there should be no problem locating then in and around population centers and avoid the transmission losses.
“Then we’ll have to build lots of nukes to charge them using *waste* heat (what part of *waste* don’t you understand)from the nukes to generate liquid fuels for aviation and heavy transport from coal, oil sands and shale.”
What part of high temperature and pressure do you not understand? You cannot process tar sands or coal with waste heat. Aviation is probably the only form of transport that need liquid fuels as heavy transport can be electrified as well.
“Oh, and I’m really glad you are so convinced of the safety of nuclear plants that you are prepared to build them close to population centers.”
I am bit worried that you want to build them away form population centers if they are so safe and clean. Whats the problem with a nuke at every corner?
“So your plan is to burn coal until it gets to 600ppm and then stop?”
No, my plan is to not worry about it until we get close to 600ppm.
“What is the basis for you determining that 600ppm is OK for the climate?”
I believe that the people who propose that climate sensitity is between .5C and 1.5C are correct. And I don’t see any problem with another 1.5C. On the other hand, I believe that the biomass will be increased by both the extra temperature and the extra CO2. With a world population that is still, at least currently, growing, that is a good thing.
“your model suggests that there is nothing wrong with emissions growth, results in Peak Coal about 2046”
I’ve seen enough “peak oil” alarms missed that I’m very very skeptical about “peak coal”. The problem with ringing the alarm bell all the time is that people start ignoring you after a while.
“I agree Tilo, Iran thinks nuclear is the best option too.”
And Iran would be correct if their only motive was to generate electricity.
“There is not enough energy in the remains to heat the kerogen.”
I’m afraid that your knowledge about shale oil is woefully out of date. A company named Oil Tech from Utah has built a successful pilot plant and they are able to produce shale oil at a price between 13 and 30 dollar per barrel. And they can use spent shale to heat new shale rock.
From their site:
“The resulting spent shale has a large heat value that will be used as a source for heating new shale rock entering the retort. The spent shale also has residual carbon content that may be combusted to further produce energy. Finally, after all hydrocarbons are condensed, propane, which is non-condensable at atmospheric pressure, may be scrubbed, compressed, chilled and bottled as clean energy, ready for market.”
and
“The retort is a sealed unit, vacuum purged and environmentally friendly, with no toxic output. Propane/methane gas, the cleanest burning gas known to the energy industry, is a byproduct of the process that may either be flared off or used to support the cogeneration efforts. ”
http://www.oil-techinc.com/profile.html
Apparently everyone is trying to get into the act. My friend works for the US Environmental Protection Agency and he has issued 9 licenses to other groups to also build pilot shale oil plants. And shale oil produces a better grade of product than Canadian sand oil.
“why not build it close to population centers and simply use the electricity with 80% overall efficiency in electric cars?”
It may not be for 60 to 100 years yet, but I think we will eventually be stuck with battery powered cars or fuel cell cars. In any case, I see no down side to starting a steady and unhurried process of building nuclear reactors today. That way when the time comes that we have to rely on their electricity, it will be there.
“I am bit worried that you want to build them away form population centers if they are so safe and clean.”
I’ll volunteer to have them built in my corner of the world. But that reminds me of a Kennedy story. Apparently Senator Kennedy is a huge proponent of windmill energy. But when the state of Massachusetts proposed building them not far from his home he fought it, claiming that they were an eye-sore. Socialists like Kennedy always have wonderful ideas that they would like to have applied to other people, but not to themselves. Does that remind you of Algore?
Tilo – “I believe that the people who propose that climate sensitity is between .5C and 1.5C are correct.”
So why are they correct? Is this what you want to believe?
“I believe that the biomass will be increased by both the extra temperature and the extra CO2”
Which is fine until the growth is constrained by either water or nutrients. Most studies show that with normal constraints of nutrients the growth rate is increased for a short while only.
“I’ve seen enough “peak oil” alarms missed that I’m very very skeptical about “peak coal”. The problem with ringing the alarm bell all the time is that people start ignoring you after a while.”
Right so oil is now $102.45 per barrel and you think that peak oil is a scare? Oil is finite and will dip short of demand as it is doing now.
“And Iran would be correct if their only motive was to generate electricity.”
So nuclear is safe and clean as long as only people you like have it? Other people cannot have it – what do they do for energy if nukes are the savior of mankind.
“‘m afraid that your knowledge about shale oil is woefully out of date. A company named Oil Tech from Utah has built a successful pilot plant and they are able to produce shale oil at a price between 13 and 30 dollar per barrel.”
Have you any idea of the amount revolutionary new shale oil projects that have come and gone over the last 50 years? Apparently all they needed was oil to be a bit more expensive that what it was at the time. When this process is producing a couple of million barrels per day then you might be right – until then it is vapourware.
“In any case, I see no down side to starting a steady and unhurried process of building nuclear reactors today.”
But only in countries that you like right?
I don’t have a problem with building nukes close to cities.
“who will pay for the pipeline” – ultimately the customers for the liquid fuel as happens now.
If you can’t use the waste heat from electricity generation just use nukes to generate process heat. Better still you could switch them to electricity generation and reduce liquid fuel production when you do this which enables you to use the nukes for peak load power. Works for water desalination too. I bet preheating the brown coal with waste heat would reduce your high temperature heat requirement too.
The transmission lines already exist from the Latrobe Valley, you could build base load nukes closer to the population centers.
Last I heard pipelines were the cheapest way to shift bulk liquids. You want to use diesel trucks, trains or ships instead?
“So why are they correct? Is this what you want to believe?”
.6C so far for 40% of a doubling. And that is with solar variability helping.
“Most studies show that with normal constraints of nutrients the growth rate is increased for a short while only.”
The growth rate is long enough to increase food harvests. And it produces more drought resistant plants. I’m not sure about the “short while” argument. I think it is exaggerated by people trying to get more AGW grants. Many greenhouses inject CO2 to a level between 600 and 1000 ppm. I’m sure they wouldn’t be doing it if they didn’t get a strong benefit.
“Right so oil is now $102.45 per barrel and you think that peak oil is a scare?”
Oil supplies and reserves are also at an all time high.
“So nuclear is safe and clean as long as only people you like have it?”
You jumped to that little victory even before you read my response didn’t you. Go back and read it again. I’m saying that Iran should have nuclear power. But only if we can establish that their motives are not to make nuclear weapons. The Russians have offered to build them nuclear plants if they allow the Russians to control the fuel. The Iranians rejected that. Guess why. Or is it possible that you don’t know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
“Have you any idea of the amount revolutionary new shale oil projects that have come and gone over the last 50 years?”
Have you any idea how many revolutionary electric car projects have come and gone over the past 50 years? It’s really an irrelevant question. The point is that they have the technology to use shale oil economically now. It has already been done in a pilot project. The only battle that remains is the political one. People like you want to warn us about peak oil while at the same time preventing us from developing the massive oil resources we have. Once again, your objective isn’t to solve problems, but rather to shape the world in your immage. “You’ll take windmills or you’ll get nothing!”