Kevin Rudd

[saiter]

Re: Rudd calls on G8 to pressure OPEC

Much of what's been done in recent years is going in totally the wrong direction. It was madness to have private electricity companies building low capital cost plants running on gas or diesel with the company focused more on futures markets and the stock price than actual energy supply. It was madness to have millions mortgaging themselves to the hilt to buy outer suburban properties and SUV's. It was madnes to think that inflation somehow creates prosperity...

No...

It was SPARTAAAAA!!!!

sorry, bad internet joke

(noob question) So can't the governments knock out the speculators or just switch to a new form of energy asap? Would that screw the economy?

 

[Timmy]

Re: Rudd calls on G8 to pressure OPEC

It was madness to have millions mortgaging themselves to the hilt to buy outer suburban properties and SUV's.

Smurf, just to zoom in one of your comments only - your thoughts on outer-suburban living combined with more efficient vehicles (hybrids, small petrol engines, scooters/motorcycles etc.)?

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: Rudd calls on G8 to pressure OPEC

So can't the governments knock out the speculators or just switch to a new form of energy asap? Would that screw the economy?

It's a massively comnplex situation, I'll explain (and try to stick to layman's terms)...

Petrol ,diesel etc aren't simply fuels for running engines. The crude oil from which they are made is an energy source rather than an energy carrier

The main energy sources used in the developed world are oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro. All of these things are sources of energy.

Examples of energy carriers are batteries, ethanol and hydrogen. They do not provide energy as such, they are simply a means of taking one form of energy (eg biomass or coal) and transforming it into some other form that is more practical for end users.

Take a laptop computer for example. Start with coal in the ground (energy source). Burn the coal to generate electricity (energy carrier). Use that electricity to charge the battery (also an energy carrier). Then use the battery to run the computer. The energy source is NOT the battery, that is simply the energy carrier. The energy source running the laptop is in fact coal.

The problem we have with oil is that it is our largest energy source. It varies somewhat by location but it's roughly 40% of our total energy.

So if we're going to use something else to run cars (eg hydrogen or batteries) then that in itself doesn't fix the problem. It only works if we increase the supply of some other energy source - otherwise we have no means of charging the batteries or making the hydrogen.

Efficiency is another problem. If you start with oil and refine it into petrol, diesel, kero etc then that process is highly efficient. Most of the energy contained in the oil makes it through to the petrol etc with only a small amount lost in the process.

But consider electricity. Starting with coal we lose only a few percent in mining (fuel for equipment etc) and transport. But by the time we've converted it to electricity (which is the major use of coal) and transmitted that to your home, we've lost fully two thirds of the energy the coal contained.

That's why electricity is so polluting - burn 3 units of fuel to get 1 unit of energy at your home or business. So say you need 10 MJ (megajoules) of heat energy put into some water. You'll have to burn 30 MJ of coal to do it with electricity.

But it's even worse once batteries or hydrogen are introduced. To get that 10 MJ out of a battery means, due to the loses involved, burning about 43 MJ of coal. And to get it from hydrogen produced from electricity means burning about 50 MJ of coal.

But right now we get 10 MJ into the petrol tank from about 11 MJ of crude oil.

So if we're going to switch to something else then we need a LOT more of some non-oil form of energy. That means a lot more coal, gas (itself a limited resource so forget that other than in the short term), nuclear or renewables.

It's not simply a matter of building a hydrogen factory or plugging electric cars into the nearest power point. Nor is it simply a matter of building a few more power stations to make that work. What we need is a lot more energy to run a lot more power stations - and that's not an easy task.

Take Victoria for example. You've got some depleted oil fields - not much help from those. You've got some gas but it's disappearing fast enough as it is - using even more just doesn't stack up. You've got some hydro but it's only a small amount of existing electricity and there's no way it can scale up enough to supply even present demand. And you've got a lot of brown coal - Victoria's major energy resource. But brown coal pollutes big time.

So what do we do? Either we're going to use a lot less energy in total as oil and then gas supplies decline. Or we're going to expand something else in a big way. Then we use that expanded production to run electric cars, hydrogen or whatever. But don't forget that hydrogen, batteries etc etc simply carry energy produced from something else and don't actually produce any energy themselves.

So overall it's a major expansion of the total amount of energy supplied from coal, nuclear and renewables. They don't have to increase individually, but in total they do. Or alternatively it's a permanent ongoing decrease in consumption. They are the only two options.

In a technical (as in mechanics etc not stock charts) sense the easiest option is to switch to gas for running vehicles. But gas as a resource is fairly limited so that means we have to switch existing gas use to something else.

And what do we use to replace gas in its current uses? Coal gasification is the easiest answer there (that's where gas used to come from by the way - Sydney, Melbourne etc all had coal gasification plants 40 years ago). But if we do that then there's a problem. Do we accept a major rise in greenhouse gas emissions with this shift to coal? Or do we offset it by using less coal in power stations? And if we do that then where do we get electricity from? Nuclear or renewables become the only answer there and , unless we can get geothermal going in a big way, nuclear is the only one that works in a technical sense at an affordable price (though it's still not cheap).

My personal best guess is we'll do a bit of everything. Rising prices crimp consumption growth. Gas gets expensive too (already happening by the way) so we see less used for power generation than most are expecting. We do some renewables but not enough. We build a nuclear plant or two but again not enough. We end up using more coal than we'd like and greenhouse gas emissions rise as a result.

I'd also add that the "petrol price crisis" will spread to become a general energy crisis at least in price terms. We'll see gas prices rise (taking electricity with them whilst governments keep pushing gas-fired power) thus flowing onto both household etc gas and electricity. Then all forms of energy used by ordinary consumers - petrol, gas and electricity - will be a lot more expensive. That's actually already happening, it's just that your bills don't reflect it yet due to contractual and regulatory arrangements - but they won't protect you forever.

In the 1980's and 90's we had lots of government-built big non-oil or gas power stations keeping electricity cheap. And we had booming oil production from Alaska, Bass Strait, North Sea etc keeping OPEC in check. Now we have the opposite - deregulated electricity markets where few will invest in high capital cost coal, nuclear or hydro plant and falling oil production in most countries. Add the depletion of gas in North America and the North Sea and it's not a good mix globally.

Think about the overall situation this way. Country or state X uses 40% oil, 35% coal, 20% gas and 5% hydro as it's energy source. If you take out that oil, then you can't simply replace it with coal, gas or hydro unless you have a lot more of them (or some other alternative - but 40% from wind and solar ain't happening anytime soon).

 

[saiter]

Re: Rudd calls on G8 to pressure OPEC

Think about the overall situation this way. Country or state X uses 40% oil, 35% coal, 20% gas and 5% hydro as it's energy source. If you take out that oil, then you can't simply replace it with coal, gas or hydro unless you have a lot more of them (or some other alternative - but 40% from wind and solar ain't happening anytime soon).

And if we don't find this replacement, then people won't be able to get to work and the economy will grind to a halt, yes? Very little products & services will be made available, so it's pretty much a doomsday event.

 

[Julia]

Re: Rudd calls on G8 to pressure OPEC

Smurf, as always, a lucid summary of a pretty pessimistic situation.
Thank you. I'm not any happier, but a bit wiser.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: Rudd calls on G8 to pressure OPEC

A real example with real numbers. And a fairly low population largely self sufficient in food and power so it ought to be easier than many other places. Tasmania.

Figures based on average hydro inflows and zero net import / export of electricity.

Hydro - 36% (93% of total electricity)
Oil - 33%
Coal - 12%
Natural Gas - 10%
Wood - 8%
Wind - 1% (2% of total electricity)

Try taking oil (or hydro) out of that and make the numbers work. What do you scale up that can fill the gap? There's no easy answer.

Globally, it's roughly like this (these figures vary considerably depending on source and how nuclear losses (which are high) and hydro losses (which are low) are counted. I've counted both in terms of the fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas) that would otherwise be used rather than the heat content of the uranium or falling water. Treat them as an order of scale for the relative fuels and not as absolutely precise data - that just isn't readily available.

Oil - 35%
Coal - 25%
Natural Gas - 21%
Nuclear - 7%
Hydro - 6%
Other (biomass, wind, geothermal etc) - 6%

Again, same problem. What do you scale up given that gas is also peaking in some parts of the world?

 

[Djayness]

Re: Rudd calls on G8 to pressure OPEC

Unfortunately, with each passing year, the worlds oil production is decreasing whilst the demand for oil is increasing exponentially. Its not a case of OPEC, pump out some more....

The worlds economies are in for a shock... http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

 

[Julia]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Today's 'Sunday Mail' has an article entitled:
"Rudd is the PM You can Swear By"

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24009355-952,00.html

Dr Peter van Onselen, who wrote 'John Winston Howard: The Biography" has written a book about Mr Rudd. "The book reveals Mr Rudd to be somewhat of a potty mouth behind closed doors," Dr van Onselen told 'The Sunday Mail'.

 

[rhen]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Fencepost Turtle

While stitching up the hand of a 75 year old Queensland farmer, who
got cut on a gate while working cattle, the rural doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to
Kevin 07 and his appointment to Prime Minister of Australia.

"Well, ya know," drawled the old farmer, "this Rudd bloke is what
they call a Fencepost Turtle."


Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a
Fencepost Turtle was.

The old farmer said, "when you're driving along a country road and
you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's
called a Fencepost Turtle."

The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain, "You know he didn't get up there by himself,
he definitely doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do
while he is up there, and you just gotta wonder what kind of dill
put him up there in the first place!''

 

[Aussiejeff]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Very well put above Julia.

The promises of governments going back since I have remembered has always amused. Australia is but a grain of sand in the real world scheme of things and it will and has allways been external forces that dictate the state of financial play.

Rudd, doesn't do it for me, Julia Gillard, she is a sweatee. Bob Brown as an honest politician is looking better all the time and perhaps green is the next big thing.

Kermit is such a cutie........

:hide:



AJ

 

[agro]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

he has been out of Australia more than he has been in Australia !

i think he is trying to save the world ..

that's the confidence

 

[Aussiejeff]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

It appears that 24/7 K.rudd has inspired confidence in Horatio. So much so in fact, that the Hornblower now "works non-stop - 24 hours a day", according to some facile Liberal Party hack on ABC local radio this morning!!

24 HOURS A DAY!!!! EVEN WHILE HE SLEEPS???? Puleeeeese, gimme a break from this nauseating fawning....

The moral of this story?

If YOU don't work 24/7 like our esteemed *leaders*, YOU are UN-AUSTRALIAN!!!!

Bugger this. I'm orf to join the penguins down at Mawson.....




AJ

 

[wayneL]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Join us expats in The Old Dart, we get to see a Liebour party massacre in only 2 years, if not before.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Join us expats in The Old Dart, we get to see a Liebour party massacre in only 2 years, if not before.

Oooh, goody. Some pollies to be sacrificed. Will it be like the French Revolution. Guillotines et all???
:behead:

 

[wayneL]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Oooh, goody. Some pollies to be sacrificed. Will it be like the French Revolution. Guillotines et all???
:behead:

Well I spotted a nice set of stocks up the road at Winchcombe... still look usable, and it would mean they have live through their humiliation too. :batman:

 

[Aussiejeff]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Well I spotted a nice set of stocks up the road at Winchcombe... still look usable, and it would mean they have live through their humiliation too. :batman:

Great! I'm packing a bushel of ripe tomatoes.... :2evil:

 

[Euler]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

A view that that he's "process driven rather than results driven".

Sits well with his PS background.

 

[juw177]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Whats going on with privatisation of energy? The public strongly opposes it and it look like it will go on. The argument for it is that it will raise funds to support out public services and infrastructure. But doesn't our power grid count as infrastructure?

 

[nioka]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

Whats going on with privatisation of energy? The public strongly opposes it and it look like it will go on. The argument for it is that it will raise funds to support out public services and infrastructure. But doesn't our power grid count as infrastructure?

Hardly a Rudd failure though. This is a state matter and will cause big changes in the Labor movement one way or another. I am worried by the fact that it seems necessary to sell our electricity (and water) infrastructure for any reason at all.

 

[pepperoni]

Re: Does Rudd inspire confidence?

No he doesnt inspire confidence, but then Howard did and ended up overcooking the economy.

So in the circumstances Ill take Rudd.