I know people who have used biodiesel successfully for years and there is some interesting stuff out there.
This one on a diesel motorbike is interesting. The videos reveal some interesting comments on how truck drivers cause him some grief. Not just bicycles it seems.
Reliability seems to be an issue as well.
thatmosis
Member
Not wanting to stir the pot too much but I have some questions:
1- Is Bio Diesel a viable alternative to diesel, by that I mean are there enough resources to actually go bio diesel or will it always remain a niche market?
2- Ethanol Fuel, is it sustainable in todays climate . It seems that good food growing areas are becoming scarce and to turn these areas over to ethanol production would be counterproductive. I use ethanol based fuel and its okay but worry about the viability. The Government is hell bent on turning good food producing land into forests in Australia so every bit of food producing land will be vital. Does this mean that if we are mandated to use ethanol we will either forego growing food crops or import ethanol from overseas at a higher cost?
Lance
Key Master
All internal combustion vehicles are woefully inefficient and need to be phased out. Hybrids are better, but on a watt-hour consumed per km travelled, EVs win hands down, especially when the electricity is produced renewably and locally, eliminating generation inefficiencies and transmission losses.
So, we shouldn't be focussing on alternative fuels when those fuels are being used in vehicles that waste 70% or more of the energy contained in the fuel. It's just makes no sense at all to do so. The whole world needs to become more efficient, and to do that we need to move away from burning liquid fuels in reciprocating engines...
Andy Chee
Member
Biofuel's role in the energy industry is to provide a form of "buffer" between today's technology and tomorrow's.
For example the transition to EVs for heavy rail, road haulage, ocean bulk carrier and air transport are still a significant way off. These modes will probably be served by biofuels in the near future (~25 years).
Electrified rail infractructure is mature and can practically be built now, whilst EV battery charging/swapping inftrastructure, not to mention new vehicles and a new power grid, will require decades to develop and build. Long haul passenger electric aircraft (think 747, not Cessna) are unlikely to be seen until at least 2050.
During that transistion biofuel is meant to alleviate reliance on fossil fuels, but humans being the complacent creatures we are, will probably use that as an excuse to delay EV development 
I think farming is going to be a major requirement for biofuels as without mass produced food production we will not survive. Despite the inefficiency of fossil fuels they have an energy density and transportability that is yet to be matched by other sources.
I think if we can get the majority of the car fleet converted to electric and people onto public transport we can extend the long term viability of fossil fuels far into the future. The 'inefficiency' of fossil fuels is dwarfed by massive waste on a daily basis by suburban commuters.
thatmosis
Member
Andy, you say " These modes will probably be served by biofuels in the near future (~25 years)." maybe so but is there enough material available to do this?? Bio fuel is a great idea but I think it will be limited to small scale people moving unless of course there is a major breakthrough in the next few years. "Electrified rail infractructure is mature and can practically be built now" and has been as far as I know but what does it run on, coal fired or Nuclear power not RE. The amount of RE that would be required to run just the Sydney rail infrastructure would be immense so it will take several decades and several gigantic steps to provide the RE power capable of running that let alone anything else.
Rockabye- farming is at a crossroads now with Governents trying to get farmers to forgo crops and plant trees and being paid to do it. This leaves very little room for any crops for Bio fuels unless we import all our food which as far as Im concerned is a threat we cant afford. As for suburban commuters its not entirely their fault. The transport sytems that are in place in some cities are woefully inadequate and until they come up to scratch and are at a reasonable price to travel people will opt for their vehicles.
If the Government was honest about the "saving the planet" they would get rid of the gas guzzlers that they have as vehicles and get electrict vehicles setting an example to the public. They talk the talk but do not walk the walk and thats one reason why people are turning off the idea that Global Warming is Man Made.If its okay for the Government to use gas guzzlers and fly all over the world instead of utilising the advancements in the internet then why should we do anything is what a lot of people are saying. We need leadership but unfortunately in this country we dont get it as the policies that are brought in are either a disaster and end up costing more money and lives and livelhoods or they are a slug on the hip pocket that ordinary people cant afford.
Its okay for a small group of people to say this is good and that is bad but unless the populace is treated with respect, given the "true" facts and can rely on the Government of the day to do it right the movement towards RE or Bio Fuel will languish somewhere between going to the dentist and paying your Taxes.
Transport and food are price 'sensitive' commodities and price increases always change behaviour which is why carbon taxes are likely to be introduced sooner rather than later. A lot of 'ordinary' people choose to spend money on expensive discretionary non essential things like alcohol, gambling, smoking and takeaway food while essential items like food, health, education and electricity take a distant second place on their list of priorities. I seen this before my own eyes at the supermarket many times with shoppers buying $80 worth of food and then adding $80 worth of smokes while refusing to buy their children a small chocolate for less than a $1. They then buy some scratchies for $10 at the newsagent on the way out.
So what has this to do with biofuels. Everything. Because if we make better choices the 'ordinary' people will have happier, healthier lifestyles. Reusing waste of any kind to make 'renewable' fuel makes sense. Big business is already well advanced in this area, they are just waiting for the price to rise to make these fuels profitable. Here is just one example.
"Algae, mostly single-cell photosynthetic organisms that usually elicit a “yuck,” can yield 30 times more oil than crops such as soy. Algal oil doesn’t need much processing before it can power a car, truck or jet engine," and
"Supporters say algae overcome these disadvantages while eating twice their weight in carbon dioxide, reducing what some scientists say is a leading cause of global warming. "
“Algae had the best potential,” he says, noting that it doesn’t compete for land with food crops."
Renewable fuels are on there way right now. Can't wait for normal oil to triple in price.
termite
Member
Yes, rockabye - when oil went up over $150/barrel a couple of years ago, the silver lining was how much MORE it was costing those with 4wd urban assault vehicles. It was the only factor that took 4wd sales off the boil.
Yes, algae are a more efficient way of producing biodiesel, though like thatmosis, I would like to see estimates on how much can be sustainably produced. It also has the advantage of not affecting food production and pricing.
Fossil fuel requirements are always predicted to be ever growing which is not sustainable on a finite planet. They never seem to be able to figure out that reducing consumption and improving efficiency will lower the requirements. I'd like to see estimates on how much fuel we really need as opposed to want.
This has been achieved in the past during national emergencies, the oil shocks in the 70's & 80's and during WW2 for example. People just made other arrangements, chose to car pool and only drove a car for essential needs out of necessity. Necessity is the mother of invention. Make fuel expensive and people will find other ways of doing things. Hence more research will go into biofuels and alternatives will 'miraculously' appear.
thatmosis
Member
Are you so sure that the ordinary people would be happier? Trying to fit round pegs into square holes doesnt work,you cant pigeon hole everybody that way. Ordinary people are concerned about several things and Climate Change is the lowest priority for most. They worry about their mortage, their credit card payments, the bills that come in monthly, who will win the Ashes, their kids and will the Council, State Government or Federal Government raise another tax to increase the burden already faced by many and growing daily. Sure they all go dear, dear, climate change but then go out and buy a 4WD to soothe their fevered brow. Tell them they cant and its why not, its my money and nobody is going to tell me how to spend it. Bludgering people into submission isnt the way and education is but it must start with the next generation and must present both sides of the arguement,fully peer reviewed and no doom and gloom Al Gore type scenarios which was so full of holes one could have used it for a collander for people to make an informed decision. One sided arguements amount to brain washing and I for one would not like to see my grandchildren subjected to this kind of thing.
Andy Chee
Member
As I said biofuel's role is only meant to be a buffer or a stop gap measure between technologies (ie. between internal combustion & electric)
When cheap oil runs out in the near term (~25 years), it is unlikely that there will be sufficient electric assets at the time to replace them. This is where biofuel will fill the gap, until extra electrical generation, extra EVs and infrastructure are rapidly built.
And like I said that's assuming society isn't complacent and doesn't sit still thinking biofuels is the solution.
There is also the possibility that coal (which is still quite plentiful) will be converted to liquid fuel, whose cost of production (compared with EVs, biofuels, etc.) will only become apparent when cheap oil does run out and oil companies try to get subsidies to develop such technology.
As for RE being unable to power an electrical economy, well I'll point you to the ZCA2020 plan for that. Bear in mind though that plan was developed with Australia in mind (not China or India)
Ordinary people do not understand the scientific method. Two sided arguments are not scientific, yet are commonly believed to be. A proper scientific argument is formed around the null hypothesis and has *four* sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors
thatmosis
Member
So if two groups of scientists disagree on an item, such as Man Made Climate Change, then that is not a two sided arguement? As I read the synopsis of the ZCA2020 plan all I see is a lot of maybe and whatevers. The idea that we can in ten years convert all our transport to electric is a stretch of the imagination to say the least if the current state of the transport industry is taken into account. Even in the 10 previous years all we have been really able to come up with is a Prius or hybrid car. Sure there are experimental vehicles out there that are coming online but to say that they will replace the combustion engine in 10 years is a joke.
Im not convinced that this is really a starter as it is based on the assumption that we will be able to do all these things for a cost of $8.00 a week per household.
Buzzman
Member
I'm not sure previous posters have quite covered the range of "alternative fuels".
Sure biodiesel is one, as is bio-ethanol, but so too is CNG, of which we have loads in the North West, most of which is currently being shipped to China as LNG.
But some fleets (bus and transport) have been successfully experimenting with CNG fueled vehicles.
Basically any "diesel type" engine can run on CNG/LNG.
Okay, so it's fossil and finite just like oil, but is cheaper and easier to extract andther's lots more of it than oil.
So......as a transition I see this being more likely than any bio-fuels, for all the reasons others have stated about displacing cropping areas and deforestation etc.
Now biodiesel from recycled oil, especially from consumer-waste vegetable and animal oils, will only ever be a small niche market for those who can be bothered collecting it.
I know personally at least three people who have or are doing this and it is about 50c/litre once produced and able to be used as fuel. Not accounting for any labour cost, of course, nor any Federal excise.
Addd that 38c/L and it is looking expensive against petro-diesel with labour costs included.
So, no, recycled-oil-biodiesel will only ever be of limited use.
But if you want to know more about it read "From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank" which is the bible for home-brew biodiesel.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Hey Buzzman
I agree with you CNG analysis. Perth already runs over 400 CNG buses. Given that Natural Gas produces less than half the embodied emissions/product life, as PV solar electricity in the first place, it makes complete sense to use these resources appropriately to make the transition to RE. Simply make CNG renewable by compressing Biogas instead of NG, like they already do in Germany and Sweden, and you'll see the logic in developing Biogas technology in Australia as well.
In comparison to bio-diesel on a per acre/kwh crop basis, Biogas is 10x better than bio-diesel from peanuts, and 2x better than ethanol from sugarcane, per acre cropped.
Plus it can readily be distributed anywhere through the existing NG infrastructure without any conversion to NG appliances or CNG/LNG vehicles. On the point of Biogas/CNG converting diesel engines, CNG (or RCNG!) can run parallel to stock diesel injection, at up to a ratio of >10% diesel to <90% Biogas/CNG, without costly modifications to the engine, and without performance loss. The main cost is in the CNG storage tanks and regulator, similar to LPG conversions. Most biogas generators in Germany/EU are actually co-fired diesel prime movers, using bio-diesel as the compression ignited fuel.
Thatmosis
Using PV to reduce (with the aid of subsidies) your energy bill is one thing, but to claim that it will achieve any form of complete sustainability is a pipe dream. It is an unnecessary argument, that I am sure most on this forum will agree will not happen in the foreseeable future.
Even Germany, one of the biggest manufactures and producers of RE, still only produces 2.6% of their RE from PV, 15.6% from wind, all up however a massive 70% of their Renewable Energy is from biomass. This doesn't even get debated in Australia as an option at all. Biofuels are already big. Brazil's ethanol is another example.
On top of this, embodied energy of PV is only good (2-7years) if the calculation does not include the embodied energy required to produce the recycled silicon ingot, that is predominately used for PV production. When included this can increase to 25 years. Take your pick of reports calculating this here:
http://energybulletin.net/node/17219
This is why I am wary of PV's ability to support sustainability. There are much better alternatives available and already in use.
I always say; that no-one uses electricity directly, we only use the effects thereof. Electricity is only a efficient energy "carrier", and like the infamous hydrogen economy, it does not actually "make energy", it only makes energy readably available.
Nearly every conversion from electricity to another form of energy (motion, heat, light etc) can occur with very high efficiency (ie 90% and even above), however, (nearly) every conversion to electricity is under 50%. We lose +40% eff. just in that conversion alone, and most of this is "waste" heat.
A car is much worse again. If you put 10L of fuel into a car, 2L gets used to move it, 3L comes off your radiator as heat, and 4L comes out of your exhaust as unused heat. Your radiator and exhaust system are more than twice as powerful as the crankshaft output in kW. However, on the other extreme, a 80kg bike rider, in a 20kg recumbent enclosed bike can achieve 90km in one hour, or 135kmh peak, with a mere 400-500W of physical body power.
Using PV to power vehicles, is emission wise, still some way from sustainable, using bio-fuels is much more effective and cheaper, as their energy densities and distribution systems are better.
The energy we recklessly consume is by far not what is necessary to achieve the task. This needs correction first. This is where the solution to sustainability lies.
Most household energy consumption is for heat generation (in AU space and HWS heat is nearly 60%), and we waste all this heat by having centralized generation, where it is cost prohibitive to duct the heat to suburbia. This is were distributed localized generation will automatically nearly double our energy "efficiency", simply by using the wasted heat from standard underutilized heat generation. If you use, like in Germany, the already existing Natural Gas distribution system for household CHP, you can even make it Renewable by using Biogas (Methane = NG).
BTW Germany already produces twice as much electricity from Biogas than from PV, and they all utilize the waste heat locally, in which the heat content is greater in energy, than the electricity produced. It even has it's own subsidy to assist it's further uptake. Biogas is not a "developing technology", it already exists.
On a embodied energy emissions per kwh comparison it looks like this:
Biogas CHP -409 g/kWh
Wind 24g/kwh
Natural Gas (non-renewable!) 49 g/kwh
Solar PV 101 g/kwh (!!)
Brown Coal 1153g/kwh (just stupid!)
Note that Biogas is the only one that reduces emissions per kwh, it is minus -409 g/kwh!
Wind still adds emissions to the atmosphere, by half of the rate the FOSSIL fuel Natural Gas does, however solar PV still adds twice as much as this FOSSIL fuel to the environment!
These are official figures from a German EU, RE report in 2007.
If you want to do solar than go for solar thermal with stirling like this:
http://www.infiniacorp.com/360view.html
Add a Biogas "booster" for night/peak time use, including HWS etc, and you don't even need batteries. If you are not grid connected you could even produce your own Biogas in the backyard. 
Plus only one moving engine/generator part...
I don't want to "rain" on the PV parade, and I still think it has it's limited uses (remote power etc), but as an alternative to other sources it fails, at least in my book. I think of PV as a solar activated battery, you buy the energy up front, but it only releases it's power when you put it in the sun.
I hope that you can see that renewables are not limited to PV and batteries, in fact they are one of the most ineffective means of achieving sustainability atm.
"On top of this, embodied energy of PV is only good (2-7years) if the calculation does not include the embodied energy required to produce the recycled silicon ingot, that is predominately used for PV production. When included this can increase to 25 years. Take your pick of reports calculating this here:
http://energybulletin.net/node/17219"
This is disinformation. Your statements and your link don't match up. Also most ingots are not recycled at all.
And of course the energy required to produce the silicon and the ingot is included in energy pay back time calculation.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Hey S2S
In the link I posted it says:
"The MAJORITY of silicon solar cells are made from off-spec material rejected by the micro-electronics industry, which introduces the question (!?) of whether to include process steps required for micro-electronics wafers in the energy requirements for the PV modules."
Also the three highest payback figure reports that include "recycling" wafers are Jungbluth 25.5 years, Kato 15.5 years and 11.8 years.
I have yet failed to find an independent study undertaken on behalf of a actual PV manufacturer (ie BP), with full LCA and EE figures for their specific product. Maybe you have some more information in which companies actually disclose this type of comprehensive information? Many "globilised" reporting strategies over a multitude of manufacturers are in-complete in their analysis, including the ISO standards, as mentioned in the "Key Considerations" paragraph of the link I posted. I would be interested to see such reports that clearly demostrate the whole lifecycle emissions balance of PV. Maybe we can discuss this further in the "Solar panel life cycle pollution" or "Solar PV Costs and Benefits" thread?
BTW I'm not stating that 25 years is the norm for PV, I was rather trying to demonstrate to thatmosis that PV is not the only viable solution for going 100% RE. There are other stronger contenders already out there, that don't get much acknowledgement in Australia. Bio-fuels is one of them.
I'm curious that you didn't comment on the g/kWh figures for Biogas vs NG vs PV I quoted. These are emissions over lifetime figures, and they really don't put PV in a good "light", seeing that they present PV as worse than Natural Gas....
thatmosis
Member
Just a question- arent we, according to my reading here, trading one finite source of energy -oil- for another-CNG?
This is not looking to the future but adding a stop gap measure. RE is supposed to be the holy grail according to some but the gap between the ideas and the reality is widening. I agree the PV is not a good substitute as it has too many limitations to be used in a form that will provide cities with the necessary power for living now and in the future.
Another question- how many tons of material is neede to produce enough Biogas to power a vehicle from Brisbane to Mackay and back?
Jeffbloggs
Member
Thatmosis
First up I meant fossil CNG would seem better for vehicle fuel than PV or similar RE, that has high embodied emissions and (still) embodied fossil energy. This is especially so if it is to used as a transitional fuel to a 100% RE economy. I did not intend it to sound like I was promoting Natural Gas over oil or coal vs RE. Even if one would consider methane hydrates as a form of natural gas, or a underground "replenishing" NG supply as "renewable" I still would not consider them "sustainable", as they would still artificially add carbon to the atmosphere, where I think it does not belong.
My point is that we need to utilize fossil resources as efficiently as possible, while they "last", until we can achieve 100% RE. NG is much better at achieving this with considerable emission reductions, than either oil or coal.
Better still is to use Biogas as a renewable replacement for Natural Gas, that way the fossil emission problems, and a few other waste disposal problems disappear.
Cities, as they currently are designed and developed, will not survive in a 100% RE world, therefore trying to make enough energy from RE for cities is counterproductive. It would be like air conditioning a wall-less patio on a 40C day, or setting up one of those LPG powered outdoor heaters, and then complaining about having to buy so much fuel without even getting warm.
Energy efficiency and renewables are inseparable conjoined twins, and neither can survive in a urban environment. For that matter, neither can humans if you take food production etc into account, cities are a totally unnatural and artificial environments, and therefore should be considered completely environmentally unfriendly! Humans have yet to develop technology that is self-reproducing and self-organ-ising (ie living), and until then there will be limited use for unsustainable cities, in a sustainable society.
Also population density wise, the argument that we need to huddle in a city in order to free up enough land for food production, is completely false. We take up the same amount of space for food production and for living, regardless of if we sleep where we make our food, or not. Obviously we need to use "space" efficiently also.
Chk out this German village that is already 100% renewable for heat and electricity (without product manufacturing atm) with Biogas, and which produces 2x as much electricity as the town uses itself.
http://www.iea-biogas.net/Dokumente/casestudies/biogas_village.pdf
BTW Biogas utilises predominately non-food crops and organic mass, and can be produced from the waste stalks/straw from wheat/canola etc, without the need for using the "food" component of the plant. Bio-diesel mostly does not have this waste recycle-ability, and even if it is algae derived, it lacks the food manufacturing capability.
On the point of a 1000km trip using Biogas, it is not a simple calculation as such, and varies according to what organic substrates you anaerobically digest. However to give you a indication of what amount of biomass is required, I have provided some examples below.
If you use electricity generated from Biogas in a plug-in EV (ie Prius type vehicle) you could go:
- 4000km by digesting 1 ton of waste bread (or 250kg waste bread per 1000km ie 5x mass of petrol or would need 3.5 tons per year for average AU driven 14000km's)
- 1500km by digesting 1 ton of grass clippings (or 666kg grass clippings per 1000km ie 13x mass of petrol or would need 9.3 tons per year for average AU driven km's)
- 10 000km by digesting 1 ton of waste fryer fat (or 100kg waste bread per 1000km ie 2x mass of petrol or would need 1.4 tons per year for average AU driven km's)
If you combust the Biogas in the same vehicle with a converted diesel/petrol reciprocating engine you can achieve up to 20-30% better range than this again, plus a overall greater selection of "compatible" vehicles, rather than relying on a battery powered EV and would also have better range per "tank". A stirling engine powered, or even methane fuel cell powered EV version would better these figures further.
-
BTW Lance
Simply changing the location of the reciprocating (or turbine) engine to a more centralized production will not always equate an overall greater efficiency when calculated "well to wheel", so to speak. You are correct in that EV's are generally better than combustion engines in terms of Wh per km, but if you make life cycle calculations including the manufacturing "costs" of wind, pv, EV, batteries or the like, an organic plant or algae which naturally "self-reproduces" requires much less resources to produce a far greater amount of energy, a significantly higher energy density with little processing, and a gratis incorporated chemical energy storage capacity, at a overall lower "cost". These biofuels are already major contributers to the RE transportation industries, and I think will continue, even if EV's become more popular. Why go to the trouble of replicating nature in energy gathering and storage from the sun, if plants do this of their own free will, naturally and sustainability? I always say: We do not have an energy crisis, we only have a crisis in making energy readily available to perform a given task. Nature already runs the planet with energy in "excess", we just have learn to run with it, instead of against it.
Another comparison along these lines, would be a ship or boat: Would it be more efficient, to electrically charge a relatively massive battery via an onshore wind turbine in order to propel a boat, or would adding a relatively simple sail achieve a overall better outcome?
One of my favorite naturally occurring, self-reproducing electricity "bio-fuel-generators" is the iron breathing Rhodoferax ferrireducens. They can convert 80% of the energy in sugar into electricity directly, and this completely organically, bar the carbon electrode on which they grow and multiply, when you draw a current. If you don't draw a current they go dormant and "wait" for demand, before they continue consuming the sugar fuel. An EV powered by this would be similar to the Mr Fusion on the back of Dr Emmett's Delorean time machine in Back to the Future 2...:)
thatmosis
Member
Thanks for the info, very informative but heres the rub. You are suggesting that our cities will never become 100% RE as they are, what do we do, tear down the cities and rebuild. The cost in CO2 would outway the advantages of going RE for decades. I am suggesting that given the state of RE at the moment and the fact that our energy levels are rising due to population etc we will never really get to 100% RE in our or our childrens lifetime. Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal while being usuer friendly so to speak all have their limitations and some have not even been proven yet in high density prolonged use. LPG/CNG etc have their place as power producers but are limited by being a finite source. What Im trying, probably badly, to say is that we havent a chance in hell of reaching the 10 year target and will be flat out reaching a 100 year target. The technology although moving foward is not up to the tasks that are required to run a city or a country at present and the billions of dollars already spent have produced very little in sustainable RE except in very rare circumstances.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Thatmosis
I don't think "tearing down" cities is a viable solution, I think the solution is more progressive, in that renovations and new buildings/infrastructure are required to be designed/constructed with RE in mind. Also new suburb developments should be forced to comply with energy strategies that allow greater RE penetration and development. This way all new infrastructure becomes RE compatible, and those wishing to live more green, can "migrate" to where this occurs, at their own cost and priority. I realise that there is considerable effort, money and emissions already embodied in current city infrastructure, and this is why they should all be required to be renovated (if viable) according to the same RE development strategies. However this is sometimes more costly than replacement with new technology, and given the (over) population densities in cities, this will need to be carefully considered when developing such strategies. Like working on a classic car, sometimes the cost of refurbishment exceeds it's value and purpose, and one really needs to be an "petrol head" enthusiast to maintain such a vehicle, especially so, if a new car can achieve that purpose more effectively, efficiently and at a much lower cost.
As to the 100% RE in 10 year target, I believe it is technically and even economically possible, but not politically and socially. Your 100 year estimate might apply for the world, but I think a 1-2 generation development period (ie ca.50 years) should suffice without to much resistance. The key here is to raise our children with these habits, knowledge and culture, and for them it will simply become their "way of life". To change us, the older fossil addicted generation is a much harder task.
BTW In regards to the Biogas powered village in Germany, there are also social and commercial advantages with this type of biofuel. For one this type of generation can be run by local operators, and like the German one, owned by the community it serves. This means the community has greater control over the pricing and productivity of the RE, and likewise becomes more energy aware and responsible. Also no "foreign" entity can manipulate this type of arrangement to profit an offshore party. Centralized corporate entities that generate cannot do this effectively. Sustainability is about size, and some things are so big they have become un-sustainable, there is simply to much "power" in the hands of a few.
thatmosis
Member
Not wanting to put to fine a pont on things but every RE inovation or renovation for RE costs about twice as much as a normal renovation and thats being kind to RE. Everytime there is a discussion on RE the price goes up and up and its not the Governement thats required to pay for it its the Tax payer. How are people going to convince the lay person that RE is the way to go when it means more finacial pain. I know I harp on about money but fortunately or unfortunately which ever side of the fence your on it makes the world go round and the average family in Australia at least is already feeling the pinch. A tax on Carbon will increase the price on everything in this country at a time when people just cant afford it. We cant afford to go it alone and jeoprodise the finacial security of this country on a maybe. Add to that the amount of money we as a developed nation would have to pay to undeveloped countries and the finacial situation gets grimmer by the minute.RE is great, I love it but not at the cost thats anticipated both economically and welfare wise.
The idea from germany is terrific but if this type of fuel/power becomes a nation wide thing then the management will be quickly wrested from the hands of the locals and put into the hands of either the Government or large business. A sad fact but true. Governments will bow to the pressure of big business before they will listen to their voters, just have a look at the QNR sale in Queensland.
termite
Member
thatmosis - you write as if RE is optional; a lifestyle choice.
When - not if - oil becomes scarce (within 100 years I expect, unless we make significant strides now), its price will eventually greatly exceed that of RE, and the problem will be not enough cheap oil to develop RE quickly enough.
To me, the only choice is whether to start now, when there is time to make a transition gradually and smoothly, without significant pain and with time for the technologies to mature; or later, when shortages start to bite, and people are scrambling for alternatives, possibly fighting for them.
I know you believe nuclear is probably the next best thing, but in my mind it is still just a 'use once' resource, and will also eventually run out, especially if our civilisation keeps childishly treating energy as something to be used with abandon. There is also the issue that we have not yet agreed to shoulder the ongoing responsibility of adequate waste handling and storage (technology is one thing; the political will to spend the money doing it right is an entirely different thing).
I certainly don't want to will that kind of pain on future generations, if it is avoidable.
Buzzman
Member
thatmosis
I don't necessarily agree with much of what you say, or the aggressively unpunctuated manner of your writing - but I tolerate - we're a broad church, ok?
So when I say that I agree with your proposition that we will not reach 100% RE in our lifetime, I do so with some caution and with conditions.....
Firstly, the reason we need 'x' qty of coal-fired power NOW is because we ALL use too much energy.
Ergo, our CURRENT energy consumption levels are fundamentally unsustainable (given access to current technologies).
Therefore, at the SAME TIME as we are frantically attempting to get RE off the ground, we should be just as frantically getting people to reduce consumption.
Reduce consumption = Less need for power production = Reduced need for new power stations = more time to get RE happening.
Here's my tips for a sustainable future:
1) Ban clothes dryers. Build a pergola (using recycled materials of course) and hang clothes under the pergola out of the rain
2) Ban dishwashers. Heyho, it's devil's advocate time!!
READ THIS CAREFULLY - Dishwashers DO NOT save water!!!
They actually create excess usage. (Because you almost always have to fill the sink to wash the stuff that won't fit or can't be put into a dishwasher).
Dishwashers use power. Before dishwashers, how exactly DID we wash dishes???? By hand, right?? SO, have we all had out hands surgically removed???
3) Limit A/C usage to days when the ambient temp is over 35 deg C. Have a 'locked' thermostat that can't be reset or adjusted. Why? Most people turn A/C on when temp is only 24-26 deg C, at which level a much cheaper and far less energy hungry fan will create evaporative cooling. Cool the body NOT the air around it!
4) Finally, ban all new coal-fired power stations. If China won't play ball, we take our bucket and spade and go home. Boycott China. Seriously. UN sanctions, the lot.
And if that doesn't work, re-elect Dubbya so he can nuke the buggers!! LOL!
My point, if there is one, is that we all (well maybe not some of US, but the rest of them, that lot out there in La-La Land) use FAR too much power.
And it's all intertwined. So much of the "stuff" we buy comes in display packaging - for the benefit of the supermarket - and we have to "dispose" of it. All that packaging is made from oil byproducts. All the plants making the stuff and its packaging use electric power - loads of it - so a general and overall reduction in consumption woudl also, surprise surprise, dramatically reduce energy needs globally.
But the economists argue that iif we allow our economy to flatline - ie: remove the "perpetual growth" argument from the table, then the whole world will suffer economic collapse.
But will it?
We've just suffered the "worst recession" ever and nobody has died as a result.
Sure there's people in America, Ireland, Greece, doing it a bit tough, but tough compared to what??
Compared to the profligate, wasteful, over-spedning, over-consuming "lifestyle" they had begun to take for granted.
History tells us that in the Irish potato famine, thousands died of starvation. That's not happening now, is it???
So it's all relative. We need to step back and get some perspective.
At the end of the day, even if we suffer a 5 degree rise in global temperature that makes life difficult for us, the planet will recover - eventually.
On a millions of years time-scale we humans are a flyspeck on the daggy end of one of history's arse hairs.
With any luck, history will fart and blow us all into oblivion.
thatmosis
Member
Sorry about the punctuation but hey, thats life. A question--again-- what Government has the balls to actually ban dishwashers, dryers, air conditioners and still stay in power. Lets face facts, Government are there primarily to work for the people, thats the common perception and completely erroneous. Governments are there to spend enough time in power to qualify for their hefty pension.
It all sounds great, ban this and ban that but the hue and cry would soon see these laws overturned to save their political necks. You are talking about a Utopian world that doesn't exist and thank god for that. I don't quite know what world you live in and your perspective is completely different to mine but I happen to live in the real world and talk to real people every other day and they are hurting. The reality is that Pensioners and the lower paid are having trouble putting food on the table as it is without the further impost of another hefty tax and that is what will be required to fund the push towards RE sustainability. Add to this the Mining Tax and theres a two fold whammy for the Tax Payer to deal with. And on top of that the Government is seriously considering paying farmers to grow bloody trees instead of food. That would lead to Australia having to import their food from overseas, where's the sense in that. Higher prices, disease and being held hostage by the suppliers, no thanks.
Its okay for the latte sipping trendies to tsk tsk the state of the world but not one of them would be amenable to giving up one item that they own to help lower the power useage, that would be too much of an imposition on their lifestyle.
Have a good look at the recession of the 30's when people committed suicide, families starved and were thrown out of their homes and I think that even you must conclude that that recession was worse than the current one. I say current one because we aren't out of it yet. With falling house prices in Australia how long before people here owe more on their mortgage than their homes are worth. Thats what started the current recession, toxic assets and its just in a lull at the moment but ready to come alive again if things get worse.
As for banning all coal fired power stations, in your dreams. If we picked up our bat and ball and went elsewhere then some other country would step in to fill the hole we left. The only thing we would have achieved is the destruction of our mining industry, which was what kept us afloat during this recession and the unemployment of thousands of Australian. Is that what you want because I don't.
Have a look at the way in which the Power Companies are handling RE. For every home that puts panels on the roof and feeds back into the grid the Power Companies raise the price per Kw. Sure some people are getting 40 odd cents per kw but how long before the Government and the Power Companies get together and reduce the price to almost nothing. Great for the Companies as they will benefit from cheap power inputs whilst charging top dollar to one and all for their output. This is inevitable and when people see this they say "whats the use" and RE takes another step backwards.
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, on one hand some people want to save the world but on the other most people think its in the too hard and expensive basket and therefore not worth the trouble. Try changing that attitude in a generation or two and we might stand a chance but personally I think were doomed I say, doomed. The earth will continue to survive in one form or another but every litre or whatever of CO2 that we save will be wiped out in a trice by her when she blows her stack and another volcano undoes the work of years in a minute. I for one refuse to knock my head against a brick wall, I live life to the fullest, I live on RE 100%, Plant trees weekly, travel overseas when the whim takes me and drive a petrol powered vehicle a couple of times week but I'll be damned if I will stand by and see Australia reduced to a shadow of its former self by people and Governments who decide that the Sky is Falling when its not really.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Thatmosis, Termite and Buzzmann.
I think you are ALL (mostly) right!!
Thatmosis you are correct in saying we are all doomed, (at least it would seem so atm) Termite says that it's only a question of time until all the fossils are used up and then we are doomed anyway, and Buzzman says we need to clean-up and learn how "to do our own dirty dishes"* if we want save ourselves from certain doom.
(*reduce consumption/waste)
Thatmosis you are worried that not "even" the government has the capacity to make us change to RE, and that it all seems "to hard" to make the necessary change. Termite correctly sees that even though it might be hard now, it's only going to get harder to change the later we do it, and he would rather see a gradual change in the current generations, rather than a drastic, conflict provoking change for our children's generation. Buzzman wants to change to 100% RE now and rid the world of global warming the "coolest" way of all.... everyone either has to turn off their AC's, which pump to much heat out of their houses and into the atmosphere(!), or otherwise he will utilise "nuclear power" to eradicate unnecessary resource consumption of populous countries!!! :0
But seriously, Buzzman does illustrate, in a somewhat flamboyant way, that we really do not understand at all "how good we really have it" in Australia, despite all of our gripes. It's true that it could be better, but it could also be far worse. Thats why we should take this "opportunity" of excess now, to make something sustainable out of it, not just for us, but for our future generations.
As to the cost of RE, everything worthwhile comes at a cost.
Not all men however have the same currency, and do not have the same accounting period.
Fossils give us cheap power for a "thrilling" life on the resource edge, for the short term, while they last. Renewables give us more expensive but inexhaustible reserves of energy for now and the future. A dollar a day is "cheap" on the day, if you pay it every day. But over a year it is still $365, over ten years $3650 and so on. Add a compounding rate of inflation (ie 2% this year + 2% from last year = 4% and so on) another GFC "revaluation" or two, more resource wars, as wasteful consumption continues to be promoted through mandatory corp-o-rate profiteering , and all of a sudden the "real" accounting shows a quite considerable hidden cost for our current reckless (better said "wreck-more!") behavior.
In fact we all seem much to complacent with the idea that we won't need to pay anything now, as the next generation will be paying the bill anyway, after all that is when we think the environmental accounting "period" ends. Our environmental "credit" is running out fast, and soon our children will realize they'll be up to pay the tab.
I believe that the only currency that really matters in life is time, and we should all do some serious accounting on what we spend our limited time on, and likewise, how through our ignorant inaction, we force others to spend their equally valuable life/time paying for our exploitation of the less "fortunate".
As for the proposed topic of this thread, bio-fuels and even bio-diesel are only part of the overall solution required for sustainability, but every piece is important, even if it's functionality and use is somewhat limited. Let us not make the same mistake we have made in the past and rely on just the one energy source, let's mimic nature and diversify, before the sky becomes so heavy with carbon, that it really does fall on our heads.
Buzzman
Member
We can't all be right, Jeffbloggs!!!! LOL!!!
For my sins, the "Utopian ideal" was posited as a challenge - I actually agree with thatmosis - we've got two chances - Buckley's and none - of getting people to give up what they have - already - totally taken for granted.
And he's quite right about the bucket and spade argument - that would only work if the entire world agreed - and we can all see how well that's going to work, I think, based on recent experience of the GATT and MMCC.
And yes thatmosis, I also live in the real world, and I am assessing the households of Aged Pensioners every day who are struggling to pay bills. Many of them, like me, have managed to reduce their electricity consumption to the absolute minimum, and they STILL struggle, especially as the Service Access Fee takes up not less than 30% of their bill - in some cases it is as high as 50%.
Then there's Council rates, home insurance, car rego and insurance, phone bills (many do not have and cannot afford an internet connection), car maintenance and so on.
Did you know the pension is only $370 a week? All the above bills total about $250, so that only leaves $120 for food, fuel, clothes, medicines and other necessities.
So yes, further tax or cost impositions will not be good for this group, and it can be expanded to include all welfare recipients, not just Pensioners, and also the 'working poor' - those who are paying more than 30% of gross income in housing costs.
But what's the alternative?
Personally I believe Utility Access fees should be abolished for those using a set minimum benchmark - so those who choose not to use get the benefit, and those who choose to use can pay a little bit more.
See my thread elsewhere on this subject, as it's clear from some basic arithmetic that the retailers would not suffer and the bills would not rise over 10% for those above the benchmark. So on a $400 bill that's only $40 - or about $3 a week - the price of a single cappucino!!! And how many people have more than one of those a week????
The bottom line, in a democracy, is that change doesn't happen unles one or both of two conditions are met - the people have to want to change, and tell their leaders so; OR the leaders tell the people they need to change, explain why, and implement a regime that has minimal impacts across the board AND on vulnerable groups.
The key problem we face, at least in this country, is contained in that word 'leaders'.
We don't have any. All we have are sycophantic, hubristic, career jockeys who, as thamosis said before, are only in it for the lurks, perks and pension. Even if this is a gross exaggeration, the point is they are all driven by the need to remain in power, and that means they are driven by polls, and polls are driven by the agenda of whoever commissions them and whom they interview, and how they are interviewed.
I studied questionnaire design and bias at uni, and believe me, it is NOT hard to bias both the direction and the output of any survey if you CHOOSE to do so.
Properly run scientific studies use double-blind testing, multiple testing, scientifically random testing and so on. Most polls don't. So they are suspect.
And these 'suspect' polls are what drives debate. That and the hard-right lunatic rantings of The Parrot.
And HE does it for RATINGS which increase his earning capacity. Sensation sells. If you can sensationalise something it gets more air time.
So here WE all are falling into the same trap. Sensationalising it.
And while we bicker and squabble and split straws, the world - the actual planet - is going to hell in a hand-basket around us.
As Jeffbloggs reminds us, our kids will not thank us!
Final thoughts:
Little Girl says to Little Boy: "Is your Dad still a politician?"
Little Boy replies: "No. He decided to go straight."
Comment on democratic process:
"It doesn't matter WHO you vote for, a politician still gets elected."
Who cares about biodiesel anyway
As for people being unable, unwilling or incapable of change this is crap. I was reading a 2009 4WD mag yesterday and when fuel hit its peak in mid 2008 large 4WD sales dropped by mid 2009 by 29%. So when fuel hits $5/litre they will hardly sell any I'd say except to those who really need to have one because no other vehicle will do the job.
Same for food, when bananas were $12 after Cyclone Larry most people went without bananas. What doesn't seem to be getting through is when there is no oil for non essential needs you will not have any choice and you will learn to make do with whatever you have. I grew up without electricity on a farm and we did not need aircons, clothes dryers, ipods or dishwashers back then and I could survive easily without them today if I couldn't get one. They are a few of hundreds of convenience products to maximise consumerism and waste. Nice to have but not necessary to survive.
So change, whether voluntary or enforced, will occur. Our decision now is to change before we are forced to, to extend the life of existing resources until renewable resources are able to take the load. Or we can keep wasting everything until it runs out and live with the consequences, probably not for long though.
Buzzman
Member
LOL!! Yeah, thread's got a bit off track, hasn't it???
I was working in the 4WD sector in 2000 and I can confirm the doom and gloom in the industry when petrol hit $1.50/L. Bring it on. Should be $5/L, then we'd see EVs being produced everywhere.
But you're right of course, we either volunteer to change now, or we'll be forced by circumstance to change later.
The issue seems to be whether others are willing to change as well......
thatmosis
Member
I actually do know what the Pension is as I am on a Disability Pension myself and my wife is on a Pension.
Rockabye- couldn't agree more, grew up without all the trivial stuff that is todays must haves, used a crystal set, homemade to listen to the radio and rode my bike everywhere. But thats us. The people of today have been bought up with these "things" that have become part of their existence. An example, have a good look at the next young girl with a mobile, she will carry it in her hand at the ready in case someone calls. Its as if her whole existance revolves around being in contact 24/7 no matter what the circumstance. Have a look at school children getting out of school for the day and before they are out the door their mobile phones are in use probably to the person they sat next to all day. The technology of today has taken over and it will take more than Governments or anything else to stop people becoming dependant on each and every new thing that pops up. Its sad and very scary to realise that people will queue for days just to get the latest gizzmo because its a "must have" and this is one [part of the problem of making people realise that its all smoke and mirrors and soon their whole lives could change, not because of Government dictates but because we simply run out of the raw materials to keep going in this manner. Make Scary Movie look like a walk in the park.
insitu
Member
Every weekend hundreds of households on the bushland fringe burn off large quantities of leaf litter. CO2 emissions from burning off are much higher than CO2 emissions from this material decomposting naturally onsite - apart from the impact which this smoke has on respiratory health. How feasible would it be to develop small-scale, household production of ethanol from this form of lignocellulose with the more effective German-engineered yeasts: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20829451?
For a discussion of this process see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#cite_note-N.Crassa-13
If the technology could be developed, I am sure we could devise a system for collecting, processing and distributing this material.
You must log in to post.
