Dear Eric,
Obviously still getting updates.
I was worrying about peak oil 10 years ago. I am a bit bored with
it. I am not advocating it - but we have lots of brown coal for
instance which is so low value that it is not saleable on global
markets.
Quoting from the oil drum - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3817
'Based on these numbers, it would seem that the only thing likely to
constrain the growth of CTL plants in Australia as a response to
rising oil prices is climate change policy limiting or heavily taxing
carbon dioxide emissions.'
I would say the majority in Australia (and the US) are becoming
confidently sceptical as temeperatures stubbornly refuse to rise.
Got this in my email yesterday -
Burn More Coal
The Daily Reckoning Australia
Thursday, 21 January 2010
I think we should be conserving coal for higher value (materials
primarily) purposes longer term.
In the long run the cheapest technology will always prevail (barring
government interference)- it is the essential strength of capitalism
that it leads to the most efficient production of goods that people
want to buy. Martenson is madly wrong about this as well. He says
that every dollar is somehow derived from the financial markets. It
is in fact obtained from production in the real world. It is a
measure of the modern insanity that people take this rubbish with a
glum face.
I am not interested in theorising about the eventual consequences of
development - theories which commonly involve seeing humanity as
disease or pestillence. What is needed tomorrow and the day after is
food security, housing, safe water, sewerage and basic health and
education services. Incidentally, these are the things most likely to
constrain population growth. A lack of economic development is the
problem and if you think you can get there without capitalism - it is
simply a romantic socialist utopian fantasy.
Cheers
Robert
On Jan 21, 6:36 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> The problem of AGW or Climate Change is what happens going forward.
> Using coal as a primary energy source can be expected to result in
> greater CO2 emissions for each BTU produced and that looks like a bad
> idea. Of course, there are processes to convert coal to other useful
> energy carriers and those have been shown to work, most recently in
> South Africa. But what will be left behind and is there enough coal
> to rapidly replace the dwindling oil production after Peak Oil? Also,
> do you think the price of oil produced from coal will still be the
> same after Peak Oil pushes the economic cost of all other energy
> sources higher. China and India are in the process of building 800
> coal fired electric power plants (see below).
>
> Here's a talk (45 min video) which I just got around to watching on
> the subject:
>
> http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/15/jeff-rubin-at-the-busin...
>
> If you want to consider the Peak Oil problem, there are several web
> sites devoted to the problem. I have found The Oil Drum to be very
> informative and the site offers numerous links and many articles
> archived.
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/
>
> Economic growth is the problem, not the solution. Without population
> control of some sort, leading to smaller numbers of people, the rest
> of the world can never expect to reach OECD levels of energy
> consumption per capita. You are perhaps lucky in that Australia (I've
> not been there) may still have a chance to change direction.
>
> If you do decide to unsubscribe, have a nice life, as the saying
> goes...
>
> E. S.
> --------------------------------Robbo wrote:
> > Even modest carbon cuts (in a highly developed with modest debt and a
> > stable banking system) of 5% (on 2000) by 2020 – are not achievable.
>
> >http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/emissions-target-cuts-can...
>
> > There is a lot more coal than oil. There are lots of fossil fuel
> > sources for 100 years or more – economically feasible to convert coal
> > to oil at US$70 a barrel and A$20 a tonne coal. We have lots of cheap
> > dirty brown coal for that – and are building conversion plants.
>
> >http://www.australiancoal.com.au/coal-and-its-uses_coal-uses_global-r...
>
> > Certainly there are technological solutions – even out of the square
> > ones.
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18387-co2-in-the-air-could-be-g...
>
> > Continued economic growth is critical to human welfare over most of
> > the planet. 2 billion people living on a dollar a day or less do not
> > need a neo-malthusian inspired economic experiment to further blight
> > their lives and aspirations.
>
> > You should get used to it – it ain’t gunna happen. You and Martenson
> > have a typically UScentric view. You need to get out more. And yes -
> > I will have to try unsubscribing again.
>
> --
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
