Another of many alarming reports about environmental damage that may be linked to climate change. In this case, the result is the emergence of dead zones in the ocean, the immediate cause being changes in currents.
Examples like this emphasise the point that uncertainty about global warming is not a reason for doing less, but a reason for doing more. The known (but uncertain) possible consequences of doing nothing add a lot more to the expected costs than do the known (but uncertain) possibilities of adaptation and so on producing lower-than-expected costs. Even more important, the ‘unknown unknowns’, that is, the possible consequences of which we are not yet aware, are dominated by nasty surprises that await us if we continue changing the climate rapidly.
There are fewer unforeseen possibilities on the other branch of the decision tree where we act to stabilise the climate. Despite alarmist claims to the contrary, for example, we have a pretty good understanding of the consequences of increased energy prices. We’ve experienced big changes in energy prices in the past, notably in the 1970s. Of course, those increases were associated with substantial economic disruption, but they were a consequence, not a cause of ‘stagflation’ – the postwar economic system broke down bin 1970 and 1971 before the commodity price boom of the early 1970s, including the oil price increase of 1973.
(Hat tip to my wife Nancy, for alerting me to this story).
John Quiggin 
lets not forget Marine life threatened by acidic oceans
http://www.developmentcrossing.com/development_crossing/2007/02/marine_life_thr.html
I wonder what that will do for the worlds krill population hmmmm? Opps there goes the food chain.
Combine that with coral bleaching and the Great Barrier Reef is screwed.
When talking about unknown consequences of global warming it’s good to remember the evolutionary basis of our connection to the world as it is. The counterfactual would be “If the world had been different during our evolution (eg. hotter, colder), we might not have evolved as we did”. Perhaps the Neanderthals of Europe are an example – tho’ not an anthropologist, my understanding is that (so far as anybody knows) they evolved from Heidelberg Man in an ice age, and were adapted to that kind of world. We are adapted to the kind of world we have. Worry about AGW isn’t just a sentimental attachment to polar bears.
There has been some interesting work done on this in Canada, it is called the ‘Starving Ocean’ syndrome. There is a web page for those interested in googling the term. Another one of those positive feedbacks.
Did you see the reports of “blooms” of jelly fish, causes and consequences. The full drama of oceanic effects, I fear, is yet to be discovered.
Someone correctly made the comment that when the coal was being formed the earth’s CO2 levels were much higher. The implied conclusion being that varying CO2 levels are ok. The thought that vary CO2 levels also mean varying O2 levels.
A perspective on this:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/evolution_atm/
Hmmmm … not convinced. Surely the oil crises of 1973 and 1979 had political causes (Yom Kippur War and Iranian Revolution) not economic.
Call me an alarmist, but it seems to me we have constructed a civilisation based largely on the spectacular energy returns from using fossil fuels, most notably oil. In the early 20th century the energy returned from drilling for oil was something like 100:1. That ratio has slowly declined, but its still around 10:1 today for Saudi crude.
There are some low-carbon energy sources that come close to matching this energy return (nukes, wind, solar) but all of these produce electricity and none are presently suitable for transportation. Some biofuels have a decent energy return but biofuels cannot be scaled to complete replace oil on a global scale. Other alternatives could be scaled (coal-to-liquids, tar sands, oil shale) but the energy return is poor compared with crude, and would result in sharply increased GHG emissions.
For all sorts of reasons we will soon have to make do with using less fossil fuels (either because production can no longer meet demand due to resource limitations, or due a need to reduce GHG emissions) and our civilisation will no longer be able to rely on the fabulous bounty that fossil fuels have provided.
When you burn 300 million years worth of fossil fuels in 300 years, surely there will be consequences.
Carbonsink
“biofuels cannot be scaled to complete replace oil on a global scale”
Not even slightly true. You just haven’t thought ofr researched this claim. Please do!
that is “thought of, or researched”
Another problem with AGW (on land this time) is the Rise of The Woody Weed. We are trying desperately to grow plump juicy crops but it is taking more effort. Summertime frosts, hot wind storms, hail, rainfall slumps in peak growing season, bug infestations, hungry animals, irrigation cutbacks and bushfires all make it easier for land to revert to blackberries, mimosa, cactus or whatever. Having caused AGW we exacerbate the problems with urban sprawl displacing good farmland, induced salinity and creating herbicide resistance with GMO crops.
At some stage we will have food shortages from both the sea and the land.
BilB, if you want to point me at some cropland estimates required to replace crude oil with biofuels please do.
Here are some for cellulosic ethanol (probably the most promising biofuel, but not yet a technological or commercial reality):
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/11/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-check.html
“Hmmmm … not convinced. Surely the oil crises of 1973 and 1979 had political causes (Yom Kippur War and Iranian Revolution) not economic.”
Well, in the same sense that World War I was caused by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, yes. But the underlying cause was the inflationary surge which started with the failure to finance the Vietnam war by taxaton. Of course, that was a political cause.
Its the positive feedbacks in a previously steady-state system that are the real worry – they are hard to predict, sometimes counter-intuitive and could be catastrophic. And they could be just over the horizon.
But to say so out loud risks being labelled “extremist” and “alarmist”. Like Flannery, who has been psycho-analysed by Brad Norington on the front page of The Australian today for trying to cross disciplinary boundaries in getting his message out.
COALition politicians like Costello, and The Australian editorialists, would rather spin the situation as being nothing more than a “slow and steady” increase in temps (maybe 50 years to go), and nothing to worry about if we all stay calm and sensible and don’t knock the economy.
Grace – Anture is not and never has been a steady-state system. Ocean currents have fluctuated over the course of history. How is this proof that man, and not nature is the dominant force in changing the climate?
That would be Nature. . .
So the Yom Kippur War and Iranian Revolution would not have happened if the Vietnam war had been financed by taxation? I find that a little hard to believe…
I’m not trying to pin all the blame for 1970s stagflation on the oil crises, but IMO the oil crises were caused by political events that exacerbated pre-existing economic problems.
If it weren’t for the inflationary surge, and the fact that oil prices (at that time effectively imposed on OPEC by the oil companies) were way out of line with the underlying market reality, the imposition of a boycott and a massive increase in prices would not have been a feasible strategy for the OPEC countries after the Yom Kippur war. In the same way, if it weren’t for the imperial rivalries and arms races in the years leading up to 1914, the assassination of an obscure aristocrat would not have started a world war.
Of course, both the Yom Kippur war and Gavrilo Princip might have happened anyway, but their consequences would have been different.
carbonsink
Good article., from someone in a cold climate. Brazil yields 5000 to 7000 litres per hectare. A very quick calculation comparison of the writers claims and the Brazillian claims says that your collumnist is under stating by a factor of 2. But that is better than 9 which is how most of the American assessments conclude. Brazil sugar cane 7000L/h versus US corn 760L/h. Take note that many “third world” countries are now seeing the potential for
A CROP WITH STABLE RETURNS THAT COMPLETELY BY PASSES AGRICULTURAL IMPORT RESTRICTIONS FOR BOTH THE USA AND EUROPE.
African nations, India, China, and even Australia (more far away than third world). The available land areas are huge. And drier climates a suitable for bio diesel (read aviation fuel) production. Work on it some more. I have little doubt that the problem has a relatively Quik (and, as your collumnist comments, lucrative) fix.
Click to access sustainabilityofbrazilianbioethanol.pdf
Dead spots have always existed as oceanographers could willingly attest. Many years ago, when I was young, the Sargasso Sea was always of great interest in ripping yarns for teenagers. What is of more concern than daed zones caused by currents is the chronic over-fishing of the oceans. With sonar and satellite equipment, the industry is more than a match for natural predators. No-one has the courage to say so but trawling should be banned for five years and Australia should do its share by keeping poachers well away. The orange roughy population may never recover and as for the Patagonian toothfish, forget it! As a species, humankind needs to be reminded of the importance of the oceans and all that live and breeed in their depths. In the meantime, fishermen could be seconded to help chart changing currents and temperatures.
BilB, there are extensive tariff restrictions on import of fuel ethanol into the USA. As the IISD’s Global Subsidies Initiative publication “Biofuels: At What Cost?” notes: “…since 1980 the United States has applied an additional specific-rate tariff on ethyl alcohol intended for use as a fuel. The rate of this additional duty, initially 40¢/gallon and currently 54¢/gallon, has varied over time. It is scheduled to expire at the end of September 2007, but there are many legislators in the
U.S. Congress who would like to see it extended, as in the past”. Corn production (the main feedstock for ethanol manufacture in the US) is also heavily subsidised as also described in “Biofuels: at What Cost?”.
Razor – how do “fluctuations in ocean currents over time” necessarily make the global weather system not a steady-state system? (Not sure what you mean by either Anture or Nature.)
gordon
I doubt that 54c (that is really 54c plus 2.5 percent) per gallon really makes a difference to Brazil who produce the ethanol for 85c per gallon. The US ethanol futures have ethanol at $2 to $1.85 for all of 2007. No matter how you look at it there’s money in that thar ethanol. And the demand is ever growing. America is probably 2 years away from commiting to Kyoto targets and the ethanol demand will grow in pace with production what ever and where ever that is.
The beauty of ethanol as a farm based product import for all is that does not compete against local product. The US cornies will say that it does, but the reality is that they do not have enough land to spend on that value of crop to meet the projected US demand in total, so there will always be a huge need for imports. It’s either that or oil. The difference is that we can breath more comfortably if it is ethanol. The picture is even better for India and Africa.
There is a technique being investigated where algae are fed carbon dioxide and heat from coal fired power stations, and produce biodiesel and stockfeed out the other end, at some extraordinary rate of efficiency. That’s a good way of recycling your carbon at least once. No links right now, though maybe somebody else can assist. Sounds very promising…
It has been previously thought that dead zones were caused by pollution which increased the plankton which produce organic matter which sinks to the bottom and breaks down, this bacterial process depletes the lower levels of water of all oxygen (anoxic).
The largest dead zone is the Black Sea and the cause is entirely physical, the Bosphorous si too shallow to allow proper mixing of upper and lower levels of water.
“pollution” being fertilisers and flood waters exiting river deltas.
wilful
That is exciting. It does not solve the coal process, though. The CO2 still winds up in the atmospere, it is just delayed by one energy cycle. But it should be just as valid pumping atmospheric CO2 through the process to make a closed loop energy cycle. And the biodiesel is your aviation fuel. Everyone is happy. A system like that can be operated in tandem with a concentrating solar power facility where the space and the hardware are all laid out. This would add to the overall energy recovery and make the electricity even cheaper.
Where we are heading is really thrilling.
Dear Grace,
The Earth and it’s climate is not a steady state system. Never has been and never will be. For you to claim otherwise ignores science, including that supporting human caused global warming!
BilB wrote:
I wish I could share your confidence. Unfortunately you haven’t told me anything I didn’t know. I had already read the bioenergy study via this link:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/10/report-brazilian-ethanol-is.html
Unfortunately most of the world’s transportation fuel is not used in tropical countries, its used in the west, and increasingly north Asia.
I would dispute your assertion that “the available land areas are huge” or that biodiesel is a viable option in drier climates. The yield per hectare is much lower for biodiesel than it is for ethanol, particularly crops that can be grown in drier climates.
Compare these two tables:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Yields_of_common_crops_associated_with_ethanol_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Yields_of_common_crops
Of course, it would be fantastic if we can make Algal Biodiesel work, but that’s very much unproven at the moment.
A study done in Western Australia suggests:
I would also dispute your assertion that biodiesel is suitable for aviation because of its tendancy to gel at low temperatures, although I know that this problem is being addressed. But the problem with biodiesel remains the low yield per hectare.
I should note that I would love to be proved wrong on all of this and look forward to reading any studies that suggest that I am.
madness!!
Carbonsink
I really dont know what you are trying to prove. The reality is that it is about percentages. The Brazillian per person CO2 per person emissions are one nineth of Australian’s for their entire population of 185 million. They have done their bit for the environment already and well ahead of time. Brazil’s gross CO2 emissions equal Australia’s. Brazil’s ethanol provides around 35% content for their entire car fleet. Large quantities of their ethanol are exported to the US via the Carribean so their fuel mix could be higher than 35% if they used all of their production internally. But the point is that any percentage of ethanol in fuel is contibuting to the GW solution. From Richard Branston’s point of view if he could replace 10% of the aviation fuel his fleet uses with bio fuel he would be able to sleep better at night. And commercially it provides a price upper limit to the cost of his oil based aviation fuel.
This is not a black and white thing. This is a progressive conversion thing. It is a changing technologies thing. What is important is that ethanol gives us the best vehicle to make rapid change where it is possible. We simply have to get the blithering idiots like John Howard and George Bush out of the way. There are many other solutions as yet undrempt of that, which given an environment of need, will leap forward to close the gap between our achieveable agricultural output and the required target. An example would be the fuel algae mentioned in another post somewhere. This has the advantage of working in a manner that the oil companies are comfortable with and understand,ie masses of tanks, pipes and pumps. This has unknown potential but given that this is the process that gave the earth its oxygen in the first place I would be reasonably confident.
I remember in 1980 something my accountant buying his first computer for 20,000 dollars. It was an IBM xt. Just one year after that I bought a similarly powered machine for 5,000 dollars. What made that difference possible was the removal of a monopolistic obstacle which opened up the technologic gates allowing many minds and energies access to perform. Now I have computers everywhere and a stack of older spares in the corner just in case. The same forces are at play in the energy field. The road blocking oil monopolies will soon loose their control, because of the mass need and changing perceptions and this will allow massive innovation in the energy field. It will happen because the need is great and the money is there to make it possible.
Dear Razor – what planet do you come from?
BilB, the US doesn’t import a high percentage of its fuel ethanol consumption. According to this WSJ article: “Last year about 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the U.S., while about 5.5 billion gallons were consumed, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Imports made up the difference”. That leaves imports at about 11% of consumption.
Given the potential limitations on land available for ethanol crops and the high Brazilian efficiency in ethanol production, maybe high levels of protection of the US ethanol industry will collapse at some point, in the face of increasing demand. But that time is not yet. The real risk is that the US will lose interest in ethanol if they have to import it.
By the way, there are also direct subsidies to ethanol producers in the US, as well as tariffs on imports and subsidies for corn feedstock. I can’t think of any more ways an industry could be coddled.
Wow!
Gordon
The US “coddles” ethanol in lieu of appling a carbon tax to oil. That is all there is to it. Keep an eye on California. An “Echange” is under way, and it is unstoppable.
that is “applying” of coarse
BilB, I’m not trying to prove anything, but I think it is very important that in our attempts to reduce GHG emissions we choose the right solution, and I am unconvinced biofuels are the right solution.
Its like the clean coal vs renewables debate. Both potentially reduce GHG emissions, but like you I am opposed to clean coal because it makes a lot more sense to keep the carbon in the ground rather than burning it then trying to bury it.
Similarly, if we’re going to power transportation using the sun (which is essentially what you are doing with biofuels) there are much more efficient ways than growing plants, harvesting them, refining them into liquid fuels (using a lot of heat), distributing the fuel (by truck) to service stations then burning the fuel in relatively inefficient internal combustion engines. In the long term it would be much more efficient to electrify most of our transportation and use the sun (and other renewables) to generate the electricity. Here is wikipedia on the well-to-wheel efficiency of biofuels:
Typical solar PV panels are around 15% efficient, with the best panels exceeding 20% efficiency. The electrical grid loses about 8% through transmission losses, and brushless DC electric motors can exceed 90% efficiency. According to the CEO of Tesla (yes I know he has an interest in pushing EVs):
I think it is instructive that George Bush is a big supporter of corn ethanol in the U.S. and in your own words he is a blithering idiot.
I don’t believe you can apply what has happened in the IT industry to other industries including the energy sector. The IT industry’s rapid progress is unique rather than typical. It is interesting that a lot of proponents of ethanol in the U.S. are from the IT industry (e.g. Vinod Khosla) and seem to have the expectation that Moore’s Law will be repeated with ethanol and biofuels.
IMO, one of the most realistic commentators on the biofuels debate is Robert Rapier.
Dear carbon sink,
What are you proposing. I hope that it is good because as we are all becoming horribly aware the earth has gone into carbon crisis…..and we don’t know what we are going to do ho ho…sob. I mean it is really bad. Even the aliens don’t come here any more. There hasn’t been a ufo sighting in like…forever. God vacations on one of his other planets, now, you can tell by the drop in miracles, I mean that given the population increase you would expect a miracle a month…but ..nothing. No..I do not call Tony Abbot a modern miracle. True it is amazing that he has a job at all, let alone a cabinet position, but that is more an expression of the Tony Principle…or is that the Peter Principle. Hmmmm, maybe that was the Liberal Principle all along..I’ll look into that. What ever! It is all falling to pieces. And, so, Carby, what have you got in mind?
The efficiency rate of photosynthesis is not really relevant – we have sun INXS. Growing woody crops is far less efficient that growing bioengineered algae. While this is early development technology, it is likely to be highly prospective.
Perhaps, but the efficiency of the entire process from biofuel-crop-to-wheel certainly is. There is no doubt that the solar-panel-to-wheel process is vastly more efficient than the biofuel-crop-to-wheel process.
Are you disputing that, or are you saying that efficiency is unimportan?
BilB, I really don’t know what to make of your last post. I suggest you read Robert Rapier’s blog.
Hey cs,
I’ve now read RR and basically we agree. He clearly isn’t aware of concentrating solar power. And he isn’t aware of the domestic concentrating solar air conditioner. That’s forgiveable ’cause no-one else has either. I see half a plan there, but it is all good.
you’ve got none to Buckley’s of getting me on public transport because I go to work at 3am and go home at 6pm, but I am keen for an electric vehicle, when there is abundant solar power to fuel it. In between I’m helping the environment filling my motorbike with John Howards E0. That is a good starting point, it is all down hill from here.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/02/19/1171733685061.html?s_cid=rss_smh
I finally agree with MT on something. I whoes idea it was?
that was I wonder whoes idea it was (fat fingers)
Are you disputing that, or are you saying that efficiency is unimportan[t]?
Efficiency is important when you’re making valid comparisons of like with like, and including full life cycle costs. In short, there is far too little data to really tell. Your quoting of percentages is a bit meaningless and misdirecting. I will certainly agree that current corn ethanol processes aren’t efficient, but I wouldn’t give up on the idea fully as yet.
I’m not trying to misdirect anyone. There’s not much space in blog comment to get your point across, and the point I am trying to make (with percentages) is that using biofuels is currently very inefficient, is of dubious benefit when it comes to GHG emissions, and there are possibly much better solutions around.
In many ways I see the ethanol meme as similar to the hydrogen meme from a few years ago (George Bush jumped on that one too). Lets see if it survives a few years of critical analysis. Hydrogen didn’t.
wilful
The corn ethanol inefficiencies are irrelevent (for the US) when considered in relation to the problem. On a national US scale the subsidies are a tiny blip. If we were talking electricity a power distributor buys power at anywhere from 30 dollars to 200 dollars per megawatt hour. Of course they prefer to buy it at 30 dollars but to meet their customer demands they will pay a lot more for small quanities. The price variation is a function of availablity and timing. The same principle applies to motive fuel. There is a national need for ethanol in fuel to replace lead in the first instance and to replace fossil carbon in the second place. The cost of it in the national fuel bill is neglible. The bonus of the activity is that it replaces imported fuel and the benefit of that far exceeds the cost of the subsidies.
I am having trouble understanding carbonsinks thread on this too. The lowest price for things is not always the right price. Why are electronic terminations sometimes gold plated when they could all be tin plated? Because sometimes gold is what you need to get the effect that is needed. The same applies to fuels. Why would you go to the trouble of farming ethanol? Because it has the desired effect of stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere. And there are an awful lot of people who like to do that sort of thing. The fact that it can be cheaper than petrol is a real annoyance. Whether it will or wont replace all of the worlds petrol consumtion is totally meaningless at this stage.
Solar panel run trams –very good idea. Probably not likely to work effectively in Melbourne, which has abundance of electric trams (world intergovernmental consensus on global warming not likely to improve terribly unhelpful weather there) but could have decent prospects in Queensland, WA and NT? Mr. Quiggin could you please evaluate merits of project, asap?
Does it? That is one of the points I am trying to make, and you are apparently missing. It is precisely because ethanol production is so inefficient and requires so much energy that the greenhouse impact of ethanol (particularly corn ethanol) is more likely positive than negative.
In a paper published in Science Alexander E. Farrell (an assistant professor of energy and resources at Berkeley) wrote:
Farrell concluded that ethanol made with natural gas produces slightly less GHG emissioins than gasoline, but ethanol made with coal produces more GHG emissions.
ProfQ, could you please close my italics tag after “In a paper published in Science” in post 44. Ta.
carbonsink
As with oil production where all of the energy to process the oil comes from the oil, similarly all of the energy to farm and process sugar cane to produce ethanol comes from the end product or waste products along the way. Surely from your reading you would have noticed that the end waste product of the cellulose to ethanol stage is lignin which is burned to produce most of the energy for the ethanol distillation. And surely you have heard of farmers who run their farm vehicles on methane gas generated from various materials around their farms. If a farmer is using diesel to power his implements then that is a convenience rather than a necessity. All of the production equipment should be running on either ethanol or solar supplied electricity.
Leave corn farming out of this. That is a stepping stone program that will evolve into something more efficient as commitment and need builds (its called evolution).
I don’t understand why you are bagging this when you know that it is the solution. Or, I ask again, what are the alternatives in your opinion?
And ethanol from any fossil fuel is just rediculouly of the point. New Zealnd built a gas to ethanol plant at great cost to convert their Maui gas, not to ethanol, (the ethanol is a half way stage in the process apparently) but to petrol. The full plan, however, was to have by the mid 1980’s all of New Zealand’s vehicles running on 30% ethanol made from sugar beet and the balance 70% petrol coming from the gas. This plan which was way ahead of all world thinking was squashed by a conservative Labour government who didn’t have the foggiest clue about environmental issues. New Zealand at the time had roll reverse political parties.
I suggest that you take a long hard look at what is going on in this country.
Following the Lima Agreement in 1970 something a long process of divesting manufacturing began. Progressively huge parts of Australia’s manufacturing sector has moved off shore. What is left has had to computer mechanise (employ as few people as possible) to stay competitive. At the same time Australia’s farming sector has been steadilly declining. Australia’s population has increased. To keep people employed we have been inventing service jobs (you will surely have noticed the steady stream of new regulations affecting every corner of our lives with each new regulation requiring people to monitor compliance [try going onto a building site]) and paying for that with mining revenues. This is why Howard is so pro mining. He knows full well that a decline in the mining sector will trigger off a massive recession. Australia’s manufacturing is hanging by a thread and no longer has the ability to accomodate re-employment of dislocated people. ie we have no flexibility. Our economic agility is near nil. The sad thing about all of this is that what we are mining the most is coal, about-to-go-out-of-fashion coal.
The fix is a simple one. Australia, of all of the countries in the world, has the most scope for the mining of solar energy. And there are many ways in which this can be done. And there are many ways in which the mined energy can be put to good economic advantage.
And getting back to the subject of dead zones, all of the models of GW effects on ocean currents that I have seen indicate a progressive breakdown of currents as the seas become warmer. At the extreme end the currents only circulate locally. This means progressive shutdown of many sea farming industries. More economic pressure. It is crucial that Australia makes the adjustments to new sustainable industries now while the economy is in a strong position.
But I don’t know that it is the solution, that is my point (again). I was exactly where you were 18 months ago — a true believer in biofuels — but after a lot of reading my views have changed.
In the short term I believe biofuels will have a minor role to play (mainly as an additive to petrol and diesel) because our entire transportation infrastructure is built around liquid fuels, and that will take many years to change.
In the long term I believe we need to electrify as much of our transportation as possible, using low-carbon sources of electricity. The main reason is because the solar-panel-to-wheel process is so much more efficient than the biofuel-crop-to-wheel process … and better efficiency means lower GHG emissisions. For the forseeable future there will still be plenty of fossil fuel inputs into the biofuel production and distribution process, whether its the heat required for the refinery or the diesel required to havest the crop or distribute the fuel.
Frankly, I find it unbelievable that biofuel proponents don’t see what an amazingly complex and inefficient process growing crops for fuel is. It beggars belief. In many ways biofuels perpetuate the old liquid fuels and ICE paradigm, and I don’t think we will ever significantly reduce GHG emissions from transportation until we move on from that.
carbonsink
Well that is a bit clearer. So you’re an electrically powered guy. No problem with that in principle. The problem is in the practice. The current situation is that every body owns cars now that can be powered by ethanol. Very few people own solar powered cars.
Stage 1: ramp up the supply of ethanol to the maximum possible. At the same time start installing concentrating solar thermal power facilities (this technology is fully matured and ready for immediate installation). Start promoting distributed power solutions for domestic dwellings(this is already under way but it needs better cooperation from house designers and house builders). Start electrifying road public transport. Modify road regulations to allow the for electric vehicles of a useful power to be used unregistered (the current limit in NSW is 250 Watts [useless] noting that the average electric wheel chair is 3000 watts). Promote the availability of gas and solar airconditioners (see Broad airconditioners). Initiate a complete study of geothermal energy sites and test drill. Ban incandescent light bulbs in favour of flourescent energy efficient lighting.
Stage 2: Set practical mandatory requirements for future vehicle manufacture (hybride, bio fuel, fuel cell, battery electric,etc). Establish a program of building conversion for energy self sufficiency. Extend the wind power program and other allied programs…..
I’ve got to go and do some work. Please feel free to modify the program or fill in the blanks I will think some more on what the program should be from my point of view.
As to your problem with ethanol, believe it or not but there are a lot of farmers who LIKE to do that sort of thing for a living. There are a lot of farmers who need to be growing things to keep their land. It actually works for Brazil. It will work in India and South Africa. Last year Brazil paid off their Paris Club debt and this year will pay off their World Bank debt, entirely because of ethanol and a strong manufacturing sector. From here on forward the standard of living for Brazillians will steadily increase while holding their CO2 emissions steady or reducing. This while most other World Bank debtors are hoping for debt write offs. You cannot seriously say that ethanol is uneconomic, that it does not work, that it does not reduce CO2 emissions. Look at the list of CO2 per person emissions along with the standard of living figures. It works.
But it is correct to say that it is not the whole answer. It is truy that solar thermal collects and converts more energy per sq klm that can be recovered through plant growth, and the high efficiency solar photovoltaics offering up to 50% efficiency will bring a whole new era of power opportunities. At that stage directly solar power vehicles become a possiblity. That may not be too many years but as far as I am aware the problem is that it is difficult to commit to production when the technology is moving so rapidly. If we suddenly had an influx of high powered electric vehicles now then we would have the ludicrous situation of powering our vehilcles with coal (may as well go back to steam).
Biofuels? No, no; we must start with light bulbs – or maybe just import more Volvos and BMWs. This is from “AM” yesterday (20/2/07). I swear I didn’t make it up.
“TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Government will today announce its intention to phase out incandescent light bulbs within three years.
By 2010 the government hopes Australians will have ditched the energy hungry devices in favour of compact fluorescent lights.
Federal Environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull is speaking here with Emma Alberici.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: It’ll be illegal to sell a product that doesn’t meet the standard, so that will happen by 2009, 2010, and so by that stage, you simply won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs because they won’t meet the energy standard…
“…EMMA ALBERICI: Lighting is said to represent about 25 per cent of commercial sector greenhouse gas emissions, what about all the businesses around the country that leave their lights on at night? Will you consider fining them?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, I don’t think that we’re likely to be doing that.
EMMA ALBERICI: Why not?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Emma, I think you’ve got to look at measures that are, that are effective, and ultimately you know, you say you want to fine a business with its lights on. How do you know when you see the lights on in a business, how do you know whether the floor is empty, whether there are people working there, whether there are cleaners working there?
I think what we need to do is encourage greater awareness of the importance of energy efficiency, as people become more conscious of it, they will make a lot of, take a lot of these steps themselves.
EMMA ALBERICI: The Europeans are being even more proactive. The European Commission plans to cut CO2 emissions from cars by putting emission caps on vehicle manufacturers.
Why not follow their lead?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we do actually follow the European emission standards because so much of our vehicle fleet is imported, we the pattern in Australia has been to follow the European emissions standards…”
Stage 1 is to put a across-the-board price on carbon, and that includes liquid fuels for transporation. We hear a lot of talk from politicians ATM about emissions trading and higher electricity prices, but I can guarantee you no politician from either major party will propose raising petrol taxes in the near term.
If we ramped up ethanol production now, the greenhouse impact would be negligible and perhaps even positive. Petrol prices may fall, and it would simply allow people to continue using their gas-guzzling vehicles, thus perpetuating the problem.
I am completely aware that there are no electric vehicles on the road, and there is no infrastructure to support a fleet of EVs (e.g. recharging stations). I am also aware that if we switched to EVs today most of the electricity would come from coal, and we would be no better off in terms of GHG emissions.
But that doesn’t change the fact that renewable-powered EVs are a better solution in so many ways and at some point we will have to go down that path. Why not start now?
It is clear that biofuels can never fully crude oil. You may not see that as a problem, but consider that the most optimistic predictions suggest crude oil production will peak around 2030 (the pessimists think it has peaked already). Consider that it takes around 20 years to completely turn over a vehicle fleet. 2030 is just 23 years away. That means we need to choose which path to follow around now.
Yes I can and I do, and I believed everything you do about ethanol and biofuels 18 months ago.