Peak Oil

[Stillwater]

Oil is a non-renewable resource. It is projected that the supply of oil is set to peak, or has already peaked and oil demand will begin to exceed supply. This will result in a steady rise in oil prices worldwide. Although natural gas is far more abundant, it is also a finite resource and will also peak.

Transport accounts for 41% of Australia's finite energy consumption. On current trends, it is expected to increase by 48% over the next 20 years. Globally there is a concerted effort to investigate alternative energy sources for transport. The impact of a steady increase in fuel prices and the cost of alternative fuels on demand for public transport needs to be considered, but is difficult to predict.

The world now stands at a point where things will change as the price of oil rises. Exactly how they will change is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty. There exists, however, an opportunity now to steer the direction of this change through appropriate policy, strategy and timely investment. It is reasonable to accept the proposition that public transport will be a key element in managing the predicted impact of peak oil.

[somebody]

Just as many deaths and injuries could result from trains and buses, especially if their frequency and the number of routes is greatly increased, as RBOT wishes.

ROFL.

They said the same thing about the 747, and a few people were silly enough to say it about the A380.  While there are some deaths and injuries from rail and bus transport, these pale in comparison to the ones for road.  Even though PT may only provide 7% of current trips, it causes less than 1% of casualties.

[justanotheruser]

No bus or train will pull up outside your house on demand and take you straight to any desired address in a single trip with no stops in-between.

You say this as if it is a problem? Care to explain why?  For almost my entire adult life I have been disqualified from driving on medical grounds.  I have managed just fine getting to train stations or bus stops. I fail to see how this is an issue.

[justanotheruser]

I'm sorry that your only social outlet is commuting with work, but that's not real community or socialising. Most people are able to make aquaintances in other settings and prefer to socialise with whom we choose, not those with whom we are merely thrown together with by circumstances. We have friends and relatives. We do other things - things we actually like, and we meet other people who like them too. We socialise when we choose to.

What you are doing is making a virtue out of necessity. You want PT to address climate change, peak oil and road congestion etc. but to counter these negative reasons with some positive spin you imagine that it is social, healthy, relaxing etc etc. (You know how many fat people I see on PT? Some of those people should be paying double fare for their extra weight and for taking up two seats. Personally I get enough exercise in the eight hours I work each day.)

On trains and buses, when they are not full, everyone spreads out to equal and maximum distances from one another. If half full, every double seat has one person in it. When forced to sit beside one another, they take turns looking out the window or hold a book or newspaper to their faces. People naturally guard their personal space from strangers and also do not like to impose on others, respecting their possible wish to be left alone. Just penning a crowd of people into one enclosed space does not create a social situation. That is not what socialising is.

Actually both my wife and I have struck up very good friendships with people who we have caught the train or bus with.  This is not the total of our social life so please don't feel sorry for us. However it is not always as 7you say. If it was why would there be such a demand for those stupid quiet carriages on the train???

You should be very careful before talking about overweight people like you do. it is not always their fault. Explain to me why two brothers can eat the same food and one puts on weight and the other doesn't. In actual fact the more active one is the one who puts on weight. Some people have medical conditions which make it difficult. I know some people who due to a car accident (that was not their fault) now suffer lifelong injuries that make exercise near impossible. because they don't exercise they put on weight. They can't do anything about the weight because they can't exercise. Vicious circle. Thereare other medical conditions that also contribute to weight gain. So yes there may be some who are overweight by their own fault but not all and suggesting someone should pay double because of something that is not their fault is extremely rude and insensitive.

The problem is you often don't know which trip is going to involve lugging things before you leave. I am not talking about refrigerators and big-screen TV sets. Smaller items than that, or a large number of separate items, can also be cumbersome yet not justify phoning a courier. Just today I went to a garage sale and bought a VCR, battery charger, phonograph and a DVD player. I did not request the people I bought them from to deliver them for me. I had to make two trips by foot to the other side of my suburb to my house. It took some time.

Try taking two kids and luggage to a train station and airport. I carried three bags while my wife pushed the pram for the 6 month old who due to rashes from regular nappies meant we had to pack enough nappies for the time we would be away as suitable ones are not sold where we were going. of course there was xmas presents packed as well. The older of the two kids had to carry a backpack but a suitcase would have been too much. i think you would find it amazing what one can manage when they have no choice. Of course for the garage sale you could have ordered a taxi if it is only a short distance.

[justanotheruser]

You characterise yourselves as a "community group", i.e. one which represents the interests of the community. But the community is not all of one mind. It is made up of individuals of varying and even opposing opinions on any given issue, public transport being one of them. If RBOT formed to represent the views of the community, then you must welcome the views of all members of the community. If instead you are a minority interest group formed to influence the community to accept  your own views, you csnnot honestly say that you represent the views of the community. You can say that you represent the interests of the community, according to what you view those interests to be, but that is not the same thing as representing everybody else's views of what is in the interests of the community. If you are just a lobbying group, that does not qualify you as a community group in the way that most people understand the term. So perhaps you need to review your conception of your organisation.

Since RBOT is working to shape the views of the community and have it's views implemented in the community, probably with some funding from the govenment, which all of us paid for, it is proper that all memebers of the community, of all views, be able to speak on your board.

Just because your understanding of community is different does not make it correct.  Just look at the definition of community in a dictionary and you will find that RBOT does fit the definition of community. When this is taken into account basically all your arguments in this post are invalid. Only one might be valid but it is not clear what you mean from what you said.  When it says debate that does not neccesarily mean anyone is welcome to debate. It could just as easily mean only those interested in railway solutions are welcome to debate. You have indicated that you are not interested in rail solutions but rather prefer car and bus. Having said that I do not know the intention of OzBob when hewrote that and started this group so I will take him at his word that you do not fit the profile.  Certainly debate is welcome. I have been a lone outspoken voice against the quiet carriages on the train here. I have also disagreed with some on other matters. I have never been made to feel unwelcome though as a result of this. That is because it is clear I am a supporter of rail solutions. Perhaps this is because I used to live in sydney and I've seen what can be achieved when money is actually finally put into rail. I have also seen that in sydney now when it comes to driving cars there is no peak hour anymore it is just overcrowded with cars all the time. Treaffic light solutions like you suggest are not an answer. Even when there are three or four different ways one can go all of them are busy.

Change isn't just welling in the basement. It's coming from the top.

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/about-planning-building/sustainable-development/index.htm

Was "road-centric" Campbell Newman in office when somebody sneaked that page onto his website?

where is this link to campbell newman's website please?  What you have provided is a link to the Brisbane City Council website. That is not the sole domain of the mayor. Newman was elected as a liberal mayor with labor majority council. Newman made it clear that he would not favour PT over cars by numerous statements. Newman got rid of several bus lanes on roads.

They are not circumstances I acceptor circumstances which necessarily must continue to  exist. Something else could be provided for me other than the basic level of personal mobility. You may as well say that because PT in it's present "unimproved" state is not preferred by most people, they should all continue driving (or start to) and not think about how they might change their situation. I know people who advocate "public and active" transport and yet own a car and drive it everywhere. Their excuse is that PT is not sufficiently convenient for them to be able to use it, so they are waiting for it to be improved. By your logic, they should accept that option under the circumstances that face them.

Actually your logic is flawed here.  The difference being you say if you had a choice you would not use PT.  These other people have not said if they have the choice.  So the two can not be compared.

So what you are doing is assuming that we cannot ultimately sufficiently improve roads but that improvement of PT can make it sufficiently convenient for all people. What you are doing is assuming the position I am questioning. Which means that you are always going to be "right".

I think the suggestion is that if the amount of money put into roads was put into PT (yes I know PT is subsidised but then so are roads) then it would be alot more attractive.


Remember the chaos earlier this year as a ramp from the CBD to the freeway started crumbling? From all the unneccesary use roads are being worn out to the point of breaking.  You spoke earlier about hidden reasons for things. Well have you noticed how much governments want to help the construction industry. They are doing this by building roads mainly. I don't see either of my jobs receiving the same kind of support

Just as many deaths and injuries could result from trains and buses, especially if their frequency and the number of routes is greatly increased, as RBOT wishes.

ROFL.

They said the same thing about the 747, and a few people were silly enough to say it about the A380.  While there are some deaths and injuries from rail and bus transport, these pale in comparison to the ones for road.  Even though PT may only provide 7% of current trips, it causes less than 1% of casualties.

just to add further to this. Your making assumptions that trains will come of the track and plough into groups of people. Many areas I have travelled on the train this simply is not possible. Even if the train did derail it would hit a wall or empty space. Lets also look at delays caused by vechiles. One can not blame PT for delays because of the actions of people either hitting boom gates because they are impatient (and I would argue stupid) or because a truck decided they could go under a bridge despite not having enough cleareance (now that really is stupidity) or because people commit suicide. Yes these cause delays but have you seen traffic bank up after an accident. So while there may be more trains there would not be a massive increase in deaths and injuries like you suggest.

[Stillwater]

Healthy debate is always better when argued on the facts:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36229/cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

Annual number of 'rail' deaths in Australia: 40 (of which most are pedestrians walking or falling in front of trains, so hardly the train's 'fault')
.
Crashes involving vehicles and trains are classed as road crashes, because it is assumed that something inappropriate happened from the vehicle/driver side of things to find the vehicle in conflict with the train, which really can't swerve out of the way.

[somebody]

Annual number of 'rail' deaths in Australia: 40 (of which most are pedestrians walking or falling in front of trains, so hardly the train's 'fault')

I'm pretty surprised it is so high.

[ozbob]

From the The Ledger . Com click here!

Oil Cost, High-Speed Rail

Oil Cost, High-Speed Rail

Published: Sunday, January 2, 2011 at 4:45 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, January 2, 2011 at 4:45 a.m.

The Ledger has published several letters to the editor in the past few months from people opposing the high-speed-train project because they say it is not economically viable. That kind of thinking is not factoring in the coming influence of "peak oil," when gasoline prices will become so high that many people will not be able to afford to have a car.

Look at the current trend. In 2000, gas was about $1.49. Today, 10 short years later, the prices have doubled to more than $3. It is going to get worse. Even now, our U.S. economy bleeds a billion dollars a day buying overseas oil.

In 2009, an article in The Futurist magazine said that by 2020 as much as one-third of the U.S. population (100 million out of 300 million) might not be able to afford a car.

One MSNBC program host says people are entitled to their own opinions, but not entitled to their own facts. Our new Florida governor-elect and U.S. senator-elect are listed as high-speed-train skeptics who might even try to cancel that project.

I can only hope that journalists and citizens and newspaper editorials will ask Rick Scott and Marco Rubio to tell us for the public record what facts they know about peak oil. That is the intent of this letter.

We need a good national mass transit system with high-speed trains and trolley car systems in all large- and medium-size U.S. cities, even if we have to use more deficit spending.

We need to have such as system in place as cars will become more and more unaffordable for more and more people.

We need some political heroes or heroines to begin talking up a peak oil preparation plan. Two politicians who maybe could fill that role are Lakeland Mayor Gow Fields and Florida Sen. Paula Dockery.

YOSSIM HIZZOD

Lakeland

[ozbob]

From the Transport and Logistic News click here!

International Energy Agency confirms peak oil was in 2006

International Energy Agency confirms peak oil was in 2006

The Energy Watch Group (EWG) has reiterated its warning that the highpoint of conventional worldwide oil exploitation had been reached in 2006 and said that with its "World Energy Outlook 2010", the International Energy Agency (IEA) expressly endorsed this conclusion for the very first time, corroborating that the production of crude oil will never again achieve the 2006 level.

The agency, made up of 28 OECD countries, represents the governmental interests of the largest "Western" energy consuming nations.

In a comprehensive 2007 study, the Energy Watch Group's scientists explained why "after attaining this maximum production, there is a very high probability that in the coming twenty years – by 2030 – annual output of crude oil will halve."

In each of the past few years, the IEA has revised its annual forecast of worldwide oil production downward, converging toward the Energy Watch Group's analysis.

Unlike the Energy Watch Group, however, the IEA continues to espouse expectations that are far too optimistic in regard to the expansion of oil production from conventional and unconventional sources. Thomas Seltmann, the EWG's project manager, explains: "Leading representatives of the IEA regularly declare that 'several new Saudi Arabias' would need to be tapped only in order to maintain current output levels. This would also be a condition for their current scenario, but these oilfields simply don't exist. You can only produce oil that you can find."
                     
Moreover, the IEA continues to make unrealistic assumptions about the potential output from so-called "unconventional" wells: natural gas condensates and tar sands – two putative substitutes for crude oil.

Production of the latter is very complicated and detrimental to the environment, and the availability of both is much lower. "Bringing them online is absolutely not comparable with the familiar oil production on land and in the sea", Seltmann qualifies. "Nonetheless, the IEA still suggests that the oil supply can be raised to meet demand."

The unjustified optimism about oil is paralleled by an equally unfounded pessimism vis-à-vis the expansion of renewable energies, and the expansion rate outlined by the IEA is well below the current growth rates for renewables. Seltmann says, "We urgently recommend that governments ambitiously accelerate the expansion of renewable energy in order to counter the foreseeable shortages and price jumps of fossil fuels. More rapid expansion of renewable energy is more economical overall than a slower approach. Even completely meeting our energy needs with renewables is possible within a few decades and more economical in total than the further consumption of oil, natural gas, coal,
and uranium."

Download of the study and updated graphic related to the EWG oil study here.

[ozbob]

Australia faces looming fuel shortages.

http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Aleklett/News-release-v4-JG.doc

Australia faces looming fuel shortages.

December 28th 2010.

Australia will soon not be able to import enough oil to meet demand because of Peak Oil.

This warning comes from Prof Kjell Aleklett, head of the Global Energy Systems group at Uppsala University in Sweden, who is currently visiting Australia.

Peak Oil is the time when the rate of global oil production reaches its all-time maximum and starts its inevitable downtrend.  Forecasts vary from between 2011 to beyond 2015.

Australia's own oil production has been declining since 2000, and already 80 per cent of the fuel for our cars, trucks and planes is imported, either directly or as crude oil to be refined in Australia.

"Declining global oil production, increasing internal consumption in OPEC nations and increasing demand from China and India will mean there is less oil available for importers like Australia, US and Europe, just when their own domestic production is declining," says Prof Aleklett.

Prof Aleklett has published a critical review of the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook, casting very serious doubts on the independence and methodology of the IEA forecasts.

"In 2008, the IEA predicted world oil production would grow from the current 85 million barrels/day to 106 mb/d in 2030.  However, the Uppsala group, using the same base data on existing reserves and future discoveries, can see only 75 mb/d.  This means a substantial decline in oil availability instead of business as usual growth.  This will almost inevitably lead to oil shortages in Australia," he warns.

The IEA and the Uppsala group agree that production is dropping in most of the world's giant oil fields by about 6 per cent per annum.   It is the ability of new fields to fill this enormous decline gap which is the bone of contention.

"The difference is due to the IEA's mistake in assuming impossibly high rates of extraction from future oil fields, twice as high even as those unachieved in the high-tech North Sea region.  Oil has to flow through the pores in the reservoir rocks to find its way to the oil well to be pumped up.  The flow rates depend largely on the laws of physics and on the geology and permeability of the sediments," Prof Aleklett says.

"Sadly, economics and market forces have little impact on droplets of oil squeezing through rocks kilometres below the surface."

The IEA is an oil-importers' cartel to counterbalance OPEC, the oil exporting countries' cartel. 

"There has been public criticism of the IEA for succumbing to political pressure from the US to give unreasonably optimistic oil forecasts," says Prof Aleklett.  "But even the IEA has been reducing its forecasts of future oil production over the years, from 121 mb/d by 2030, to 115 then 106 and now 96 mb/day in 2030.  However, the Uppsala group's criticisms of the IEA methods have been unchallenged. I stand by my assessment that world oil production will start declining soon."

Forecasts of looming global oil shortages have also been given by a range of authorities, including the US and German Defence Departments, Sir Richard Branson and even Macquarie Bank.

Prof Aleklett is warning planners and investors that on-going business-as-usual growth in Australia's oil usage is impossible.

"Peak Oil will mean peak traffic and peak air-travel.  Car and plane trips will start to decrease as oil shortages hit.

"Cities and businesses that prepare in advance for the probability of oil shortages will fare far better than those that believe the fairy-tales that oil production will keep increasing continuously.

"Oil vulnerability assessment and risk management planning should be an essential step for governments and investors.  People whose superannuation is in airport and urban toll-road companies will be very hard hit unless the funds managers start considering Peak Oil risks, soon.  Oil vulnerability assessment should be an essential part of any investment decisions as most companies will be affected in one way or another," Prof Aleklett concluded.

[Jonno]

ABC1 8:00pm Tonight - Catalyst - The Oil Crunch

[ozbob]

alttransport --> Transit Ridership Up Due to Rising Gas Prices

[ozbob]

The Greens Media Release

http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/road-rage-federal-transport-budget-has-australia-route-oil-shock

Road Rage: Federal transport budget has Australia on route for oil shock

The Federal Budget's failure to address years of under-investment in public transport infrastructure has left the country extremely vulnerable to rising oil prices, the Australian Greens warned today.

In Senate Budget Estimates committee hearings this week, Greens spokesperson for transport Senator Scott Ludlam confirmed that once again, Commonwealth infrastructure funds were pouring into urban road building while public transport funding lagged far behind.

"This budget commits five times as much funding to roads than to rail. Virtually nothing has been committed to cycling infrastructure, and with the Energy White Paper still a long way over the horizon, our country is sleepwalking in the age of peak oil."

Senator Ludlam asked representatives if the Department understood peak oil and was essentially told the Government believes 'the jury is out' on the phenomenon.

"The lack of foresight is stunning. All credible sources indicate we hit global peak oil in 2006. The age of cheap oil is over. I've been using successive budget estimates hearings to try and detect any sense of urgency, without success so far."

"Electric rail, for both commuters and freight, can be powered by renewable energy. In China the government is rapidly expanding a network of high-speed rail powered by electricity and presiding over one of the fastest-growing renewable energy sectors in the world, while our government is pouring money into obsolete oil-dependent infrastructure. As the price of oil rises, and with Australia set to import 70% of its oil by 2015, the long-term economic consequences will be grave."

[#Metro]

I think part of the problem is that there has been indeed money, but have you seen the price tags of the latest infrastructure, 
High speed rail will blow up mountains of cash on mountains of concrete for ZERO increase in mobility.
And in doing so it will deny everyone else in urban areas and cities the chance to upgrade their dilapidated systems.

These people have good intentions, but they do not know that if they are successful, they will cause huge damage to public transport and possibly even the environment (will the train go through environmentally sensitive areas?) because the things they ask for lock up lots of cash
that could be spent on other measures that have far better social and environmental return.

Maybe I should start buying shares in Engineering companies and consultancies.

[O_128]

I think part of the problem is that there has been indeed money, but have you seen the price tags of the latest infrastructure, 
High speed rail will blow up mountains of cash on mountains of concrete for ZERO increase in mobility.
And in doing so it will deny everyone else in urban areas and cities the chance to upgrade their dilapidated systems.

These people have good intentions, but they do not know that if they are successful, they will cause huge damage to public transport and possibly even the environment (will the train go through environmentally sensitive areas?) because the things they ask for lock up lots of cash
that could be spent on other measures that have far better social and environmental return.

Maybe I should start buying shares in Engineering companies and consultancies.

Hate to sound horrible but I'm going to see the front page of the courier mail in 5-10 years and laugh at peoples misfortune.

Headlines such as "Government failed to deliver public transport to growing city" " Battlers have no access to transport due to rising fuel prices" "CM campaigns for beenleigh quadruplication" "Why are our Motorways empty, CM investigates the cost of rising petrol on working families" "Wheres our rail? , Yarabilba residents ask.....Mavis smith (52) and her family moved to the area in 2011 expecting that a heavy rail line would be built " Fuels to expensive I can barely afford to drive to the closest bus stop"

But Ill be sitting in my nice apartment in the inner city with great PT access laughing at all these idiots who 10 years ago were demanding new highways, tunnels, bridges at the cost of everyone else.

[Gazza]

High speed rail will blow up mountains of cash on mountains of concrete for ZERO increase in mobility.

What about those in between major cities?

[Golliwog]

High speed rail will blow up mountains of cash on mountains of concrete for ZERO increase in mobility.

What about those in between major cities?

If you live at or near one of the 3-4 major centres that will get a VFT station about 10km from city centre, yep!

Unfortuantely too many are misguided by the thought that a VFT will replace the XPT in stopping pattern and that it will make commuting 400km an affordable option for many

But if they're putting in the VFT tracks going past the inbetween towns, it wouldn't be much extra to allow the slower XPT type train run along the faster alignment stopping at the inbetween towns giving access to the VFT. But hell, even if they have to catch a coach to the VFT station, its a hell of a lot better than what they have now.

[SurfRail]

If you live at or near one of the 3-4 major centres that will get a VFT station about 10km from city centre, yep!

Not necessarily.

We are probably talking about something like this (as a possible option, corridors are still being identified):

- Brisbane
- Gold Coast
- Coffs Harbour
- Wauchope-Port Macquarie area
- Newcastle area
- Central Coast
- Sydney CBD
- Sydney Airport
- South Coast
- Canberra
- Albury-Wodonga
- Seymour
- Melbourne

As it is, most of these places are not exactly close to an airport or major railhead anyway, and I expect a VFT will be quite central to most of these stops (probably not Newcastle or Port Macquarie, but the rest are doable).

6 and a bit hour travel time end to end, which is not entirely competitive with air travel, but the cumulative air traffic flowing between SYD and each of BNE/OOL/CAN/MEL and regional airports would be quite contestable.

There is no reason why slower "sprinter" services could not be deployed on regional runs.  For instance, I see little reason why there could not be a Coolangatta to Coffs "local" run calling in at Pottsville, Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay, Ballina, Lismore, Casino, Grafton and Woolgoolga en route, making use of parts of the old Northern Rivers line, the existing North Coast line and the new alignment (which would probably be a bit more coastal).

[colinw]

There is no reason why slower "sprinter" services could not be deployed on regional runs.  For instance, I see little reason why there could not be a Coolangatta to Coffs "local" run calling in at Pottsville, Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay, Ballina, Lismore, Casino, Grafton and Woolgoolga en route, making use of parts of the old Northern Rivers line, the existing North Coast line and the new alignment (which would probably be a bit more coastal).

That is exactly the sort of thing they do on the Spanish high speed system, which I greatly admire.

e.g. Madrid to Barcelona gets a 1TPH through "AVE" high speed service, but the more than adequate remaining track capacity carries other medium speed services branded "AVANT" which service lesser destinations, in some cases running high speed to a junction then turning off up a "classic" line.

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Peak oil can fuel a change for the better

[ozbob]

We all have our views.  Mine is based on the large body of scientific and expert knowledge on peak oil.  Peak oil is a reality and is actually happening now.

This is a very well referenced and balanced report --> http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/ParlSupport/ResearchPapers/4/6/a/00PLEco10041-The-next-oil-shock.htm

[somebody]

Shane,
I've heard of diminishing copper supplies.

I don't think too many commodities have the same impact on our lives as oil.  If it becomes significantly more expensive, life will change.

[Jonno]

...and as an fuel source is one of the dirtiest most polluting most harmful fuels there is.  Our addiction to oil is killing this planet and our people.  Is that not reason enough to want to change or like most addictions the high obscures the true effects.  Time for Oil Anonomyous to run along Alcohol Anonomyous!!! 

[somebody]

Demand is rising so rapidly as to outstrip any gains in efficiency.  Besides, I'm sure you can see if you are at 96% efficiency already there are limits on how much of a gain you can get from there.

[somebody]

- NO ONE knows what recovery efficency is achievable by the oil companies in 20-40 years time, they can only project based on current trends

Everyone knows that the efficiency cannot be greater than 100%.  If current trends continue, i.e. rapidly increasing use and little response to finding more with increasing price, I am backing this increasing price horse.  Of course there are alternatives to Oil like natural gas, Methanol and Ethanol.  It is these alternatives which I have little doubt will eventually become economic.

[somebody]

Increasing from 50% to 100% only covers a doubling in demand over half the period.  We'll outstrip that soon enough.

You can disbelieve peak oil if you wish, but it seems to be accepted among those that work in the industry.  Although alternatives do exist and will become economic in a relatively short period of time.

[Jonno]

Those in the cigarette industry said the same about cancer. It is called denial!!

[ozbob]

Green Left http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49946

Capitalism's destructive car mania detailed

Capitalism's destructive car mania detailed
Sunday, February 5, 2012
By Phil Shannon


The car, say Canadian authors Bianca Mugyenyi and Yves Engler who took a bus ride across the United States, is a doomed jalopy going nowhere. It fails, especially in the "home of the car", on every green count.

Cars are the single largest contributor to US noise pollution and 40,000 people in the US die from car accidents each year (one million across the globe).

The two million cars added to the US automotive fleet each year require asphalting space equivalent to 400,000 football fields, paving over prime farmland. Parking is an omnipresent visual blight on the urban landscape and the car promotes an ugly urban housing sprawl.

The car is economically wasteful, chewing up 20% of GDP in the US (compared with 9% in Japan with its mass transport system). The cost of running a car soaks up one third of the working life of the average US citizen.

Inefficiency is its byword ― only 30% of a car's petrol is turned into actual motion to carry just 10% of its weight, so only "3% of the fuel's energy actually moves what needs to be moved", Mugyenyi and Engler write.

The ecological tyre-print of the car is huge even before it leaves the sales yard. Each car requires huge quantities of water, metal and rubber, while generating tonnes of solid and air-borne, often toxic, waste.

The car's life-blood, oil, is one of the most environmentally dirty industries globally. The transport sector in the US is the nation's leading source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The petrol-driven, internal combustion engine guzzles 63% of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed each day in the US. "Peak oil" and rising petrol prices are spurring on the rise of even dirtier "unconventional" fuels such as tar sands, shale oil, genetically-modified ethanol, deep sea oil and liquefied coal.

Importantly, the authors puncture the desperate delusion that "alternative" fuels can solve "the ecological catastrophe that is the private car".

Corn-based ethanol produces more CO2 than oil-based petrol "if all the energy used in the growth phase is properly accounted for". Corn-as-fuel also takes up five times more land than corn-as-food.

Using hydrogen or electricity to power US cars would need more dirty coal as an energy source. Either that or an area as large as the state of Massachusetts for solar panels, or New York State for wind turbines, or 200 new nuclear energy plants.

"There is no such thing as a green car," the authors conclude. "Unsustainable" would barely describe the car's environmental failure if the rest of the world were to adopt US patterns of car ownership and driving behaviour.

So why is the car such a protected species, culturally celebrated and immune from radical policy review? Because, the authors say, the car is integral to the capitalist economy and thus any criticism of the car is taboo.

Since 1925, the automotive industry has been the leading sector of the US economy, and, of the world's 10 largest corporations, three are car manufacturers and six are oil companies.

The logic of maximising corporate profit through the car, they write, is compelling to all manner of capitalist industries that sell vastly more glass, rubber, steel, aluminum, plastic, paint and other products for the car than they ever would for the puny bike or efficient train.

With this economic power of the "auto-industrial complex" comes political power and access to huge government welfare programs. This offloads the private costs of the car onto the public purse for roads, police, hospitals and environmental repair, while government tax concessions, grants, bailouts and other subsidies are freely on offer.

Public transport, denied the aura of corporate profit, is the sickly runt of the transport litter whose strongest offspring gorge on the teat of public welfare.

This need not be so, say the authors. Raising the costs of driving and restricting car space are necessary sticks to the necessary carrots of investments in pedestrian, cycling and public transport infrastructure and people-centric urban design.

Making public transport free is essential, they argue. They cite Belgium's third biggest city (Hasselt), which enjoyed a 1300% increase in public transport use over 10 years of free mass transit, and Ockelbo in Sweden, which had a 260% rise with half the new public commuters being former drivers.

All that stands in the way of a green transport future is the "concentrated private power of corporations" in the oil and auto industries.

The car and capitalism stand together. They must fall together too.

Traffic congestion creates stress and induces aggression, particularly towards cyclists, pedestrians, traffic lights and speed limits ― anything that might slow the mighty car down.

Toxic pollutants from tailpipe and particulate matter from tyre rubber (treated with dozens of carcinogens, neurotoxins and heavy metals) create health havoc from respiratory disease to cancer. Cars also "make you fat", with all the attendant diseases of obesity.

The car is a huge devourer of space ― roads, garages, petrol stations and parking make up between one-third and one-half of the total space in US cities.

[ozbob]

US Navy understands peak oil, clearly ..

============================

Agriculture, Food and Regional Economies
The Honourable Tim Mulherin
07/02/2012

US Navy delegation to discuss biofuels in Mackay

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Regional Economies Tim Mulherin and Mackay Sugar today hosted a US Navy delegation to discuss the future of biofuel research currently conducted by Queensland Universities.

Mr Mulherin said this follows the Premier Anna Bligh's announcement last year while attending BIO 2011 that Queensland researchers are preparing to make a bid to provide the US Navy with biofuels for ships and planes by 2020.

"Queensland has an opportunity to capture the interest of the US Navy with its biofuels technology development," Mr Mulherin said.

"Queensland is a big sugar producer and the state is well placed with a number of research institutions working in the bio-fuels area.

"There is an opportunity for Queensland to lead the way working with the US Navy in the development of next stage (demonstration-scale) commercial production of biofuels."

"The US Navy is trialling biofuels in its aircraft and ships. By 2020 the US N avy wants half its fuel needs met from alternative sources.

"Today's tour will display to the US Navy the significant investment and development the Queensland Government has made in the bio-industries sector.

"For example, we provided $3.1 million to establish the QUT Mackay Renewable Biocommodities Pilot Plant which opened in 2010," he said.

The US Navy also met biofuels researchers and industry leaders at the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology at University of Queensland in Brisbane yesterday.

University of Queensland Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Terry welcomed Mr Tindal, saying his visit to Queensland was a credit to local researchers who are making advances in areas including new-generation "drop-in" biofuels.

Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (AIBN) Systems and Synthetic Biology Group business manager Dr Robert Speight said the aviation fuel research had a clear focus on "deli vering real benefits to Queensland".

"Microbial fermentation is used to turn sucrose from sugarcane into advanced biofuel," Dr Speight said.

"AIBN researchers are applying systems and synthetic biology to improve the microbes as well as assessing the technical and economic potential of applying the technology in Queensland.

"The overall aim of this multi-stage program is to enable commercial manufacture of biofuel from Queensland sugarcane, supply the aviation fuel market in Australasia and help seed a strong and sustainable domestic advanced biofuel industry."

"The next step for the initiative is to evaluate commercial viability and continue to enhance the fermentation process," Dr Speight said.

Mr Mulherin said both University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology experts attended today's meeting.

"With multiple Queensland universities working on various bio-fuel strategies, there is also a good supply of high ly trained people able to support the potential industry," he said.

"This is part of building a strong investment case in this new industry opportunity."

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Professor Sagadevan Mundree said QUT is the only institution in Australia with the capability of demonstrating a diverse range of waste to biofuel technologies at the pilot scale.

"QUT's Mackay Renewable Biocommodities Pilot Plant has now been operational for over 14 months, so Mr Tindal is here to find out more about how the technology is progressing," Professor Sagadevan Mundree said.

"The pilot plant is unique in that most biofuel research and development in Australia is taking place at a lab-scale level."

==============================================================

[ozbob]

Financial Review --> Oil prices to double by 2022, IMF paper warns

[ozbob]

Pssst,  RTT  put ' Oil prices to double by 2022, IMF paper warns ' into a google search box.

When the google search page comes up click on the link ....  you will see the article ...

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Health concerns over sustainable fuel

[Stillwater]

Have a look at the shape of the 10 big cities most likely to be screwed by Peak Oil:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-cities-that-are-most-screwed-by-peak-oil-2012-5#how-will-we-survive-11

[somebody]

Click the left arrow.  Not the most opportune link.

[ozbob]

From ABC News click here!

Rise of diesel fast and furious

Rise of diesel fast and furious
By online business reporter Michael Janda

Official figures show the use of diesel-fuelled cars by households has jumped almost 50 per cent in the past three years.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics study of motor vehicle usage has found 13 per cent of households are now driving diesel-powered vehicles, up from 9 per cent just three years earlier.

"For the first time the number of Australian households that opted to use diesel to power their main motor vehicle has hit the one million mark," said Andrew Cadogan-Cowper the director of the ABS Centre of Environment Statistics.

Unleaded petrol remains the most popular fuel for households, with 83 per cent using petrol-engined cars.

However, within petrol-powered vehicles, there has been a distinct shift away from basic unleaded to premium fuels, with 14 per cent of households now using premium, up from just 8 per cent in 2009.

According to the Australian Institute of Petroleum the national average price of diesel for the week ending October 21, was 152.7 cents-per-litre.

The national average for petrol over the same period was 149.4 cents-per-litre.

The ABS figures show New South Wales had the highest use of premium fuels, at 20 per cent, with the ACT the next highest at 18 per cent.

New South Wales also had the highest use of ethanol blends, at 15 per cent, compared to a national average of 6 per cent.

Despite the well publicised woes with Sydney's public transport system, New South Wales has the highest proportion of households using public transport, at 21 per cent, followed by Victoria with 17 per cent.

However, car pooling does not seem to have particularly caught on, with less than a quarter of the eight million people who drive to work or full-time study usually taking passengers.

[ozbob]

Multiple websites for car pooling .. also a lot of the larger organisations have their own internal informal arrangements as well.

More info on the ABS data --> http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/latestProducts/4602.0.55.002Media%20Release1Mar%202012

March 2012 10.9% Qld, NSW 21.5%, Vic 17.2%, SA 10.8%, WA 12.2  public transport for usual work/full time study ..

See table 2.2 Table 2.2 MAIN FORM OF TRANSPORT USED ON USUAL TRIP TO WORK OR FULL-TIME STUDY, Persons who work or study full-time–2006, 2009, 2012               

[SurfRail]

Petrol here costs 44c/L and takes us an hour to get to work and I car pool with 4 people to both save money and stress of driving, although I still choose to buy a 3.5L engine Aurion for its size for our family and power. Obviously in Australia car pooling is either harder to find suit car poolers to share with or people are still too independent. Hence the complaints about higher petrol prices are not serious.

Q, are there suitable websites that could be used to find a car pool?

There's always "scott" from coseats...

[somebody]

March 2012 10.9% Qld,  NSW 21.5%,  Vic 17.2%,  SA 10.8%,  WA 12.2  public transport for usual work/full time study ..

I think Qld's poor performance is driven by lack of HR rail pentration in suburbans and also because it skirts the city CBD, rather than runs through the centre'ish. Like it or not, buses do not attrack the same level of ridership for similar transit time, frequency and fares. I'd go as far to say 75% of rail, although I don't know. Same for Adelaide. And yes the high fares which has probably lost between 5 and 10m users pa from rail alone.

The CRR I think will make a big difference as it runs through some easy target suburbs and provides good city access. MBRL and Turbots Rd will also have a big step forward. And completion of Springfield, GC, SCL and fixing the Doomben line won't hurt either.

NSW is nearly 50% bus.  Vic much less bus due to the trams.  What really restricts buses here is the anti HOV lane mentality.  AKL & WLG are more than 3/4 bus.  In Brisbane we are between those places for patronage.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Where even the earth is melting

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Human climate link firms