Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Stuart writes: "The key to all this will be de-centralised energy and transport systems, as well as re-localised food and employment. We've spent the last 50 years or so building centralised energy systems and moving ever further away from our work and food sources (not to mention replacing some of our best agricultural land with energy guzzling McMansions) based on the assumption of cheap fuel. Utter madness."

Complete agreement from me.  There was a movie doing the rounds a while ago about the impact of peak oil on America.  It was called The End of Suburbia.  I think this is what the end of reliance on fossil fuels means.

I have to laugh when I hear people describe peak oil as a 'theory'. Peak oil is a theory in much the same way that the spherical Earth is a theory. Apart from a few people spouting nonsense about abiotic oil, there is no dispute that global oil extraction rates will peak and then gradually decline. The only meaningful debate is about the timing and the consequences of the phenomenon.

Many people wrongly assume that peak oil means the end of oil. It does not. Peak oil signals the end of cheap energy. The trouble is, we have built a society and a physical infrastructure on the premise that cheap energy will always be available in ever increasing quantities.

I suspect that most people in the developed world will first experience peak oil as an economic problem. As potential demand exceeds supply, bidding contests drive up the price until economies are damaged sufficiently to extinguish some discretionary demand. As supply declines further, the cycle repeats until there is no more discretionary demand to crush. In many respects, we are seeing that process begin now.

The situation is complicated by the rapid growth of domestic consumption in oil exporting nations. High oil prices are stimulating their economies significantly. Those who rely on imports will experience a far sharper drop in the availability of oil than simple decline rates would suggest.

Higher energy costs are also kicking price inflation along. Energy is a required input at every step in the value and distribution chain. Nowhere is this fossil fuel nexus more important than in the production of food. Most people are simply unaware that, since the 'Green Revolution' in agriculture and on average, every calorie of food energy they consume has used at least ten calories of fossil energy to get that food to the table.

I suppose it is natural for people to look for the magic bullet(s) that will slay the peak oil dragon. The problems would have been challenging enough in the absence of the risks of anthropogenic global warming and the consequences of climate change. Strategies such as coal-to-liquid, tar sands and oil shales require vast amounts of fresh water for processing and release enormous quantities of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

Biodiesel is no magic bullet. It requires nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, water and sunlight to grow it, and if you want decent yields year after year, fertiliser will be required. Fertiliser is energy and it is already getting very expensive. If you have to choose between using water and fertiliser to feed people or to feed internal combustion engines, the answer is a no-brainer.

I have no doubt that we are in for a very difficult transition as peak oil really starts to bite. It will be easier if we don't hold on to the fantasy that we can continue to squander energy with business-as-usual.

I'm glad someone has pointed out the down side of Jatropha and other imported non solutions. We already have seed oils established which are compatible and have varied uses along with natives able to provide a lot of seed oils. Wild radish produces 43% oil, brown mustard 40% and makes a lovely cooking oil. Biodiesel isn't a long term answer, but a transitional one as it doesn't provide us with a fuel supply which overcomes the problems completely. We already have the technology to solve all our problems of generation and storage using flow batteries http://www.axeonpower.com/flow.htm. King Island uses flow batteries as does places in Thailand, India that I know of and probably other places for storage from it's bio/veggie/small hydro/wind generators which provides 24hr a day power. We use solar and wind for energy to power our two houses and soon to be opened restaurant/backpackers. Seed oil powers a generator for workshop power, veggie drives our 53ft motorsailer, tractor and vehicles which reduces not only our carbon foot print, but lowers our costs dramatically. Even someone with just an average backyard could produce some oils and food for domestic cooking use and using local cooperatives to process it would be a good start. The first step to helping this country cope with the environmental changes, is to stop population growth, get rid of non indigenous meat products and associated industries which debilitate the land and only use what this country can provide sustainability.

The emissions from biodiesel are far below fossil oils http://www.journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_nox.html

You can use biofuels and dispose of the waste from it's production without polluting, just put it into your compost, worms love it, unlike fossil oil products which destroy everything they touch and are very carcinogenic. Fission will never come to be, as I requires us to harness an energy force we have misinterpreted and have no understanding of what really powers stars. Hydrogen and solar are the only sustainable long energies and vegetable oils can replace everything made from fossil fuels, clean coal, another pipe dream of the academics. The problem is the people in control of our parliaments and government institutions all seem to be ignorant of anything but their superiority complexes, in the face of the reality of their total stupidity, lack of knowledge and viewable outcomes for the real world.

I understand Malcolm B, Duncan's viewpoint, it relates beautifully with the verifiable outcomes produced by lawyers in politics and our society, the blind leading the blinded. I'd put my faith in someone with hands on experience rather than as is currently, people put their faith in those with little practical experience of the realities of the world. That's why nothing of a positive nature gets done other than semantic waffle, repeat never fulfilled promises, reams of meaningless reports, empty words and denials from fools who get their knowledge from ignorance. Which gives us outcomes the complete opposite to what is required, as we currently are experiencing.

What bugs me most of all is people run round looking for solutions which don't equate to our countries unique circumstances, so they want to import anything they think will solve the problems we face. This country can provide from its natural environment, everything we need to ensure a sustainable life and an ever increasing positive environment. We need real practical outcomes, not academic ones. Just look at the present political campaign, academics waffling on about nothing, just fluffing their feathers, complaining and putting out reams of empty rhetoric with not one solution for climate change, or any other portfolio or scenario. Malcolm, who'd want to debate a lawyer about climate change in the middle of a city? It's like debating the universe whilst spending your entire life in a windowless box. It's irrelevant as to whether it's climate change or not, something is dramatically changing our continents ability to sustain our debauched approach to life. From what you say, I doubt you have a clue about what's happening outside your deluded comfort zone, in the real world of rural Australia. So a vote for you, would be a vote for nothing of substance, but a rear end short term emission.

John Pratt: Your link to the Chinese 13 million hectare jathropa plantation took me to a publication called IfEnergy which confirmed what you quoted:

"The Chinese are aiming at doing something tremendous. This month, the Chinese government revealed plans to put up a 13-million hectare jathropa plantation, capable of producing over 6 million liters of biodiesel per year! According to the State Forest Administration, this plan is in recognition of the viability of biofuels and the need for a diversified energy base for Chinese transport. On top of the biodiesel produced from the nut of this particular tree, wood from the plantation will also be used to generate power as fuel for a 12 MW power plant facility also being designed within the plantation area.

"When you are thinking of putting up a plantation the size of England, you are an ardent support of renewable energy solutions! Read more about this development here" [link to China Daily].

Unfortunately the China Daily link does not work. At least not on my  poor old steam-driven computer.

But the figures are as you quoted. Thirteen million hectares to produce six million litres of biodiesel per year. That is, it takes 2.17 hectares (or 5.35 acres) of land to produce one litre of biodiesel. If that land was in one of the Australian wheat-growing areas, a passing fair wheat farmer in an ordinary year weather wise could get two tonnes of wheat per acre off it, or around 11 tonnes. Provided he could fuel up his tractor, that is. But something tells me that the jathropa grower's single litre of biodiesel wouldn't drive it very far.

Sometimes, just sometimes, I suspect that I am too subtle for my own good - one of the reasons, no doubt, why I would make a lousy advocate.

Perhaps this clarification would help.

If we are going to evaluate different sources of energy properly, surely we need to be aware of (1) the environmental inputs (including carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions) of their creation, and (2) the environmental outputs (including carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions) of their use.

Until we have an accurate statement on both sides of that particular equation, how can we possibly make any sensible evaluation of the relative costs and benefits? It seems to me to go way beyond comparing apples and oranges.

PS I am going to bed now, so any further debate on my part will have to await the morrow.

Hi Fiona;

According to this article

The overall smog forming potential of biodiesel is 67 percent less than diesel fuel, the company states. Its analysis of biodiesel emissions show decreased level of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which have been identified as potential cancer causing compounds.

And our little miracle plant is also apparently useful for

Used in traditional medicine against a long list of ailments including burns, cough, stomachache, gonorrhea and syphilis, inflammation, jaundice, paralysis, pneumonia, rash, tumors, and ulcers, the Jatropha has latex that contains an alkaloid, jatrophine, which shows anti-cancerous properties. The extracts have been used in folk remedies for cancer.

And from here;

Preliminary research indicates Jatropha may display certain Anti-Tumor properties, Anti Malarial properties and research is advancing related to HIV/AIDﾒs and immune system response enhancement. There are other levels of use that can be exploited. Direct fermentation of seed cake and pulp delivers an organic fertilizer that has a high potential for export to developed countries. 

However, it's still not christmas;

There are still some inherent problems with Jatropha and research work is still required. We are learning more and more about the properties of Jatropha. These potential problems include:

1) Jatropha oil is hydroscopic - absorbs water and needs nitrogen blanketing on steel tanks. One issue that is quite clear is because Jatropha is high in acid, it has the tendency to degrade quickly, particularly if not handled properly through the supply chain.

2) Right from the time of expelling, the oil needs to be kept in storage conditions that prevent undue degradation. Exposure to air and moisture must be minimized - hence the need for nitrogen blanketing on the tanks.

3) The range of fatty acids present in the various seeds will differ but the oil and biodiesel that is produced must be acceptable. However, this assumes that that oil is fully degummed. The degumming may well be more of a problem than making biodiesel!

4) The phospholipid, protein and phorbol ester contents in edible Jatropha seem to be quite different compared to these contents in non-edible Jatropha. It needs to determined if this affects the degumming method. The degumming removes lecithin and other related compounds, so if these are high than a modified degumming method may be needed. If the oil is properly dried after degumming and kept under nitrogen blanketing this may suffice. Biodiesel companies are investigating storage requirements and the oxidative stability of Jatropha.

5) Seeds degrade as soon as they are picked and so careful storage and handling is required. In the warm humid atmosphere in countries such as Ghana the degradation of seeds can be rapid. Even in the U.K. seed storage is a problem. Recently a U.K. importer had samples of rapeseed that had been harvested and stored in wet weather. The analysis showed that they had 28% of free fatty acid! The free fatty acid must not increase above 2%.

6) There has never been a highly commercial group handling Jatropha Curcas harvest and derivatives.

And a final note of caution;

Jatropha was under promotion in Thailand. The seed oil of Jatropha possesses tumor-promoting substances. When this oil comes in contact with human skin there are chances of skin cancer. The researchers of Thailand conducted detailed research on this aspect and published the research paper titled "Presence of Tumor promoter in the seed oil of Jatropha curcas from Thailand" in the prestigious Japanese Journal of Cancer Research. 

Look, I am a mere lawyer/academic psychologist. So, could someone please explain - what does biodiesel produce when burned?

After all, for some years now anyone daring to have a wood fire has been castigated for producing carbon dioxide.

So, what's so wonderful about biodiesel? The fact that it is a renewable energy source? Surely the aim of anyone who is serious about reducing carbon emissions is to move to sources of energy that don't produce carbon dioxide at all?

Stuart: I agree with you. 'Fusion' has always been about 50 years away for at least the last 50 years. But that is fusion based on Tokamak reactors, which have to achieve the core temperature of the sun (around 10 million C) inside a magnetically confined internal plasma chamber order to work. My understanding is that  researchers to date have got to within one percent of that required temperature.

Sonofusion is not based on Tokamaks. It uses at present bench-top sized reactors, with tiny local hotspots inside achieving fusion temperatures and, on the face of it, actual fusion: detected by neutrons coming off at the predicted energy levels.

There has been enormous opposition to sonofusion development, and one of the principal researchers has come under extraordinary personal attack, with attempts being made to block all further research on his part.  Given that fusion has such fantastic potential, one wonders who and what vested interests are behind it.

The near future will be one of many energy sources: biodiesel, solar, methane generators, geothermal power, natural gas, and even limited amounts of energy from nuclear fission and 'clean coal.' Hydrogen is abundant in sea water, and one hydrogen atom in about 7,000 is a 'heavy hydrogen' or deuterium atom: the kind needed for fusion reactors (and hydrogen bombs.)  Because the energy released when 2 hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium is so huge, the deuterium we have in sea water is essentially an endless supply. In my view, research into 'cold fusion'  is an excellent investment, and far better than state investment in 'clean coal' and nuclear fission. 

The hardy jatropha is resistant to drought and pests, and produces seeds containing up to 40% oil. When the seeds are crushed and processed, the resulting oil can be used in a standard diesel engine, while the residue can also be processed into biomass to power electricity plants.

and

The plant can grow in wastelands, fertilises the soil that it grows in, and yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean; more than ten times that of corn. A hectare of jatropha produces 1,892 liters of fuel (about 6.5 barrels per acre).

Jatropha can also be intercropped with other cash crops such as coffee, sugar, fruits and vegetables.

How about a few Webdiarists throw a few dollars together and plant a few hundred acres?  Anyone know of any underutilised land?

Richard, fusion is like 'clean-coal' - non-existent.

Richard:  But, like clean coal, achievable with investment? 

Bill, my apologies I did have a guess at what it costs us for fuel, and it's 2.8c a litre not 2c. Our fuel is mainly filtered used vegetable oil and we make biodiesel to start the engines it until the oil warms up, when you combine the cost of the biodiesel and how much you use per litre of oil, it comes to 2.8c per litre. As we have a few acres, its not hard to get 500 + litre's an acre, using the right seed oil crop and rotating seasonally. The country's bush could provide a great deal of seed oil from the huge amount of seed dropped from both Eucalyptus and wattles, they already have machines which harvest many varieties of trees without harming them. Our ute has a range of over 3000 kms which drops the cost even more. Aquaculture which gives you both vegetables, berries and some fruits, also gives you eating fish at a very low cost and you can have small ones in flats. If we don't take the strain off the ecology and environment of this planet, using sensible cost effective methods, our outcome may be more than we bargained for. If the rate of extinctions continues to accelerate at the pace it is, we may not be able to survive when conditions and the biodiversity of the planet disappears, as their food supply below them disappears.

In my post above, I wasn't referring to all people living in urban situations as clones, it just appears that a lot of them act that way when it comes to the important things for our future. Then again when I think about it, there's probably just as many clones in the bush who are still trying to cling to a dying way of life and refuse to change. It may be to late for any who haven't prepared their farms or businesses already for the coming changes associated with climate change and rapidly unaffordable fuel and energy. Coal needs lots of fuel to extract and move transport as does every industry, as they've stagnated sustainable transport infrastructure and massively spent on short term road transport,  I don't care who gets in, as long as they do something that will make a difference and not just another book full of broken promises and ongoing destruction of what supports our lives.  As the say, you can have an environment without an economy, but you can't have an economy without an environment. Seems pretty logical to me.

I wonder how long it will be before people awake from their deluded dreams to realise that neither the lib/lab coalition, nor any of the current parties have any viable plans for the future, just more of the same. I understand the faith ideologists have in their preferred failed factions, but anyone with half a brain can see it's too late. To change direction now would still take many years before workable changes came into effect. Having more fuel efficient cars is stupid in the extreme: we need vehicles which don't use fossil oils at all. We have alternatives which can cope with the situation if approached right, but as we all know it's the vested ideological and corporate interests which control political parties and their directions, not the electors. My fuel costs me about 2 cents a litre and it's simple to achieve. Even city dwellers can reduce their consumption and reduce both fuel and food bills with a little effort. But I know all city and urbanised people really want is to be provided for and not have to be responsible for their own existence. That's why it's easy for the current nut cases in politics to get in, they prey on the blind apathy of the sociological and ideological urban clones.

If you rely on the politicians to do anything rational, you are just waiting for the end. Having complete fools in power results in foolish outcomes and the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats have to be most unintelligent bunch of programmed corporate clones I've ever seen. For those living outside cities, a good backup is to buy a couple of horses and have a cart built now (pity there's no water for feed, though). For those living within the cities, your days of living in gluttony and ease at the expense of the rural sector's hard work are over. Better ask your god for help, as it's certainly not coming from those you are prepared to hand your life responsibilities to and put blind faith in.

I would suggest the current high prices are due to a number of factors and peak oil isn't one of them.

Theories regarding peak oil are as pointless as arguing religion, one either believes them or one does not. My simple question to those asserting oil will be $350 a barrel in the not to distant future: Have you people found yourselves a broker yet?

Evan, it's difficult to disagree with you, but not everyone lives in a city. Not everyone lives within walking distance of a public transport terminal, decent or otherwise.

The fact that cars are getting more awful as the crisis looms — I mean larger and heavier and hungrier for fuel, seems strange. And of all things taller! What the hell's that all about? If the trend continues they'll soon be as high and unwieldy as American cars were in the 1930s.

Looks to me like the energy addicts are in some kind of final death throes as inevitable disaster catches up with us all.

I think cars are awful.  I hope the lack of petrol means they disappear.

Bring on walkable cities and suburbs and decent public transport!

US crude jumped $US2.44 to $US86.13 a barrel in its fifth straight session of gains, after hitting an all-time peak of $86.22. London Brent crude rose $2.24 to $82.79.

Citigroup analysts say a run at $US90 is now seen as reasonable.

Oil is pushing up to at least $U100 a barrel. We need to develop a fuel efficient car in Australia.

The Green Car Innovation Fund would aim to generate $2 billion worth of investment to manufacture low emission vehicles in Australia, Mr Rudd said.

He said Labor would introduce the fund over a five-year period from 2011 if it won this year's election.

Under the initiative, the automotive industry would be asked to match a $500 million government contribution on a one-to-three basis.

With the oil price about to reach the $U100 mark, the promise by Labor to generate $2billion worth of investment to manufacture a low emission care in Australia is a step in the right direction.

It is a disgrace that Australia has not developed hybrid technology. I recently went on a driving holiday around Brisbane and Hervey Bay, I caught the Tilt Train from Cairns to Brisbane, hired a Toyota Prius in Brisbane. We drove up to Hervey Bay, the car was great (after I figured out how to get it going). The Prius averaged about 85 miles per gallon in the old money or 4.9L per 100km. The fuel saving almost paid for the cost of hiring the vehicle.  We could save a fortune in fuel costs and help reduce our GHG emissions.