Article

2006-05-22 Home Front Economy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2006-05-22 01:45|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 SO: These guys _really do_ have something that'll work to replace oil, at a low price. It's just unacceptable to them because of CO2 emissions.

SO, everyone goes back to petroleum, which also has the same CO2 emissions problems.

They're looking at an alternative fuel technology that could work and adding additional criteria to it that the primary source it would be replacing doesn't meet either, and then declaring that it means it won't work.

The biggest enemies alternative fuels have aren't the conspiratorial oil companies. It's the advocates of the fuels themselves.

Posted by Phil 2006-05-22 02:00|| 2006-05-22 02:00|| Front Page Top

#2 There is a lot more coal out there than the published reserves show. Here in Western Australia there are vast coalfields that have never produced a ton of coal, cos there's no demand.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-22 02:31|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-22 02:31|| Front Page Top

#3 Here in Western Australia there are vast coalfields that have never produced a ton of coal, cos there's no demand.

Providing the price is right, there will always be a demand. China just can't get enough at the right price.

Posted by tipper 2006-05-22 02:51|| 2006-05-22 02:51|| Front Page Top

#4 "Most experts agree that the age of oil, amid dwindling resources and spiraling prices, will be over soon."

The spiraling prices bit is true, for now. The rest is pure 100% rubbish. No actual "expert" would say this. There is a LOT of oil. There is NOT a lot of refining capacity. Even if the West reduced consumption, the slack would be taken up by others - at least for the forseeable future - though the spiralling bit would definitely soften up considerably.

I certainly favor reducing dependency on unreliable sources of energy - life must go on. But it will not reduce funding to the Bad Boys. We'll have to take it away from them in SA and Iraq if we want that outcome.

This energy crunch will, eventually, force us to do what we would not do otherwise. In the end, that's a very good thing. Personally, I consider petroleum to be far too valuable to be merely burned as fuel in commuter vehicles.

Posted by random styling 2006-05-22 03:01|| 2006-05-22 03:01|| Front Page Top

#5 The Eastern coalfields in NSW/QLD can satisfy Chinese demand and they already have the infrastructure. Here the coal is mostly in unpopulated areas that don't even have roads.

If you look at a map of world coal reserves, you will find they are concentrated in developed or industrializing countries that's becuase people have looked for coal there. There are large areas of the world where no one has bothered to look because the world has abundant cheap to mine coal.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-22 03:03|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-22 03:03|| Front Page Top

#6 "SA and Iraq"

Er, Iran, sorry.

Posted by random styling 2006-05-22 03:06|| 2006-05-22 03:06|| Front Page Top

#7 well you can use ethanol/methanol in cars right now without any expensive process being built.

You just need to modify the engines due to the corrosive nature of the fuel.

And producing it is a closed-carbon cycle. You make it from waste products from sugar production. CSR have built their first methanol plant in Queensland and generating power from it.

Farm equipment used to run on it and several cars have been designed to run on it, i've posted their links on rantburg before.

why muck about with this?

Sure, burn coal in electricity generators but use ethanol/methanol in cars because it is simpler.

Keep it simple

Posted by anon1 2006-05-22 09:50|| 2006-05-22 09:50|| Front Page Top

#8 This is soemthing we shoudl be doing nearly immediately. Diesel hybrids woudl probablywork very well - diesel engines work well under steady loads, and the diesel-electric hybrid woudl seem to be a natural one.

After all, the Germans used their liquified coal-derived petroleum to run their diesel-eletric submarines and other war efforts (like Panzer engines) over 60 years ago in the middle of a war with half thier stuff being bombed to hell and gone.

Why have we not bothered? Open up the coastal reas for gas exploration, and start building the petrochemical converion plants for coal right now. We do that, and push for tax breaks for diesel-electric hybrids, we could drop a huge amount of our need for imported petroleum (diesel has many sources, including biodiesel).

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-22 10:30|| 2006-05-22 10:30|| Front Page Top

#9 We should also be building refinaries and nuclear plants. And open up that tiny spec of ANWR for drilling.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-05-22 10:43|| 2006-05-22 10:43|| Front Page Top

#10 OS: Why have we not bothered?

Back in the 70's during the oil shortage and price run-up a number of American corporations got into synfuels and made major investments to process oil shale. When the price came back down, they got absolutely hammered and had to terminate their operations, with significant losses. They learned their lesson and stayed well away during the following decades.

I think US corporations would try again if we were to put a tariff on imported oil to keep the price above $50 / barrel, and made it difficult for Congress to cancel the tariff.

In the long term a carbon-balanced energy cycle is needed. Nuclear fission and later fusion energy can be used to generate hydrogen to run vehicles, or to charge batteries. Cellulostic biofuels could also be economic if the technology could be developed.

All these things are market driven. If the price of oil is stabilized at a relatively high level, attractive alternatives will appear.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-22 10:53|| 2006-05-22 10:53|| Front Page Top

#11 Good luck with that tariff thing. Look at the Donk-generated MSM-fanned faux-outrage over oil company profits.

Don't want it, folks? Don't buy it. You've been on notice since '73, so your guzzler is your problem.

Posted by random styling 2006-05-22 11:00|| 2006-05-22 11:00|| Front Page Top

#12 Trees eat carbon dioxide for lunch, producing nice clean oxygen and a very lush garden. Teach the poor Islamic widows of the world nursery and gardening skills, send them seedlings, supplying them with sustenance for their families and even control erosion and absorb the rainfall. Replenishing the destroyed rainforests that caused much of the enviros bellyaches in the first place is just another benefit of new approaches to the energy crisis.

Posted by Danielle 2006-05-22 12:10|| 2006-05-22 12:10|| Front Page Top

00:09 CrazyFool
00:04 random styling
00:00 Crelet Elmeregum6315
00:00 anonymous2u
23:58 DanNY
23:57 Ebbereth Jeans9622
23:54 3dc
23:54 pihkalbadger
23:50 DanNY
23:48 pihkalbadger
23:48 Fordesque
23:44 Ebbereth Jeans9622
23:44 DMFD
23:36 pihkalbadger
23:35 Algore
23:33 DanNY
23:33 Xenophon
23:32 Ebbereth Jeans9622
23:32 Xenophon
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:29 DMFD
23:25 Ebbereth Jeans9622
23:22 Oldspook
23:19 JosephMendiola