Interesting to read some of the comments thus far - in depth research is needed before throwing out an unresearched comment i.e. in relation to ethanol - have a look at some of the submissions to the senate enquiry - here's is a quote from a State Govt in regard to ethanol -
- Bio-fuels are feasible and important but are most unlikely to be abundant enough or cheap enough to replace petrol, as Australians have known it. For instance, if all of Australia's wheat crop was converted to ethanol, it would only replace some 9-10% of our current oil needs. Converting a vital major food source entirely into fuel is neither practical, nor morally defensible.
Further to the original post, readers may be interested in a recent US Department of Energy (DOE) report into the issue of peak oil. The authors testimony to the
US HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
states that "
The era of plentiful, low-cost petroleum is approaching an end. A recent
analysis for the DOE focused on what might be done to mitigate the peaking of world oil production. It became abundantly clear that effective mitigation will be dependent on the implementation of mega-projects and mega-changes at the maximum possible rate. A scenario analysis was performed, based on crash program implementation worldwide – the fastest humanly possible. The timing of oil peaking was left open because of the considerable differences of opinion among experts. The results were startling: Unless a mitigation crash program is started 20 years before peaking occurs, the economic consequences will be dire. Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, because motor vehicles, aircraft, trucks, and ships have no ready alternative to liquid fuels, certainly not for the existing capital stock, which has lifetimes measured on a decade scale.
The world has never confronted a problem like peak oil. Since it is
uncertain when peaking will occur, the challenge for decision-makers is vexing. Mustering support for an approaching, invisible disaster is much more difficult than for one that is obvious. We would like to believe that the optimists are right about peak oil being a distant problem, but the risks of error are beyond imagination".
The issue for aviation is simple - all economic forecasts are based on an ever increasing supply of oil, rather than an ever increasing gap between production and demand. Forecasts by several economists now have oil anywhere between $100 - $270 barrel in the coming years, terms such as "demand destruction" are becoming common. Given a large amount of air travel is based on discretionary spending and this is reducing already for the common person, how will increasing fuel costs affect the average person? Have a read of recent work done by Griffith University in relation to Oil Vulnerability in the Australian Cities.......an eyeopener..... how far do you think the food at supermarket has travelled and how much oil/energy has gone into its production - wait to these costs are passed on, because at present very little has! For every calorie of food you eat, approx 10 calories of fossil fuel equivilent energy has gone into its production - makes one realise how vunerable our society to not having access or capability to obtain cheap oil! If discretionary travel reduced to 10% of current levels what would this mean for airfares - hence the comments from Qantas CFO in my original post - the writing is on the wall.
A recent US Army report also highlights the forecast difficulties of maintaining fuel in a future where demand outstrips supplies. So many people prefer to stick their head in the sand and not research the issue seriously, or simply think technology will save us - have a read of what the CSIRO has to say and other Government Departments, then understand what our Government policy is on managing a fuel emergency - you will be surprised - if you can't afford it - tough.......!