Ethanol

By neville222 on 10 January 2012 - 3:58pm

A very recent news report has not gained much attention anywhere. That is, China has proposed to set itself a CO2 tax like Australia. What? Yes. But, it won't start until 2015 and at only $1.55 a tonne. I imagine them laughing at us.

We will be paying $23 a tonne, increasing by time and the legislation says it can't go below $15. Brown was grinning at this when told it was only $4 in the EU market.

Green Smoke ...

By JohnCollins on 18 February 2012 - 7:59pm

Just a short note to anyone who owns a diesel car or ute or truck. I have just acquired a book by an Aussie bloke named Robert Sharman and it is called "Simple Biodiesel" and published in 2007 by Tasman Energy p/l at www.tasmanenergy.com.au .

I relates in simple terms just how to manufacture your own diesel fuel and simple modifications to make running on home manufactured fuel, a reliable proposition and Mr Sharman appears to know what he is doing.

Maybe it's worth the risk ... maybe not. However it does have one huge advantage, and that is, that you know how much your fuel is going to cost you every time you fill up ... and that is something that we haven't been able to do for some years!

Cheers, JC

I was confused about a media

By neville222 on 21 February 2012 - 2:55pm

I was confused about a media report of a protest on the Darling Downs about CSG and coal mining. Alan Jones (a "shock jock" shock, horror) was one leader. Also Katter is against CSG. I can understand the CSG fear although some farmers are 'drought proofed' financial wise by being paid for the more drill sites they have.

But I can't understand the call against the existing coal mine expanding a bit. Some protesters had signs on themselves saying things like, "Dirty fossil fuel." Yet, where do we get our power from, even the farmers? And the protesters and farmers all use fuel of some sort in their 4X4s, tractors, cars, etc. Or maybe farmers use electric powered tractors which leads us back to coal power stations.(sarc)

My head spins because solar and wind are never, ever, ever, ever going to replace the power we need just for transport (despite diesel) but for general use such as cooking, washing, power tools, lighting, TV and communications, etc...etc.

All these protests give me gas!

By JohnCollins on 21 February 2012 - 9:10pm

Nev, The protests are not about the coal mine ... it's just that they want to expand (like double), a bloody great coal dump ... it seems they're mining more than their port facilities can keep up, and all the people in the vicinity of the coal loader at the port, don't want to have their washing all dirty ... much better a few no account cows and sheep and some malcontent farmers.

As for CSG, the farmers are not complaining about the size of the gas extraction pumps, but rather that no one has done a definitive and independent study as to whether it has a detrimental effect on the artesian basin. If it does prove to have a detrimental effect, then more than half of Australia's food production could be at risk! As far as the pumps are concerned, no amount of money is compensation enough if one (as has actually happened), just happens to blow up ... and it just so happens to take someone's home with it! How would you like one fifteen feet from your bedroom window, with no recourse to complain, because all the bloody government can see is dollar signs.

Captain Bligh and her crew, says "think of all the millions of dollars in royalties," how much of it do you think we will see of it? It will, as all such 'royalties' find itself squirrelled away into some obscure slush fund or other and be frittered away on overseas 'study tours' or other similar frippery. How much have we seen of of all the money received from the sale of QR?

I can think of many, many appelations that could be applied to Alan Jones, like arrogant snob, or Liberal party appollogist ... but "shock jock?" Dear oh dear Nev. I have met the man on several occasions, and can say that he his handshake has all the shock and character of a wet chux. Unlike his colleage Stan Zemanik whose handshake was like a ten ton truck and Stan was a real shock jock! And a first class sailor. But to his credit ... Alan did coach the Oz Rugby team to its only success at the World Cup, and his well crafted speeches won a lot of votes for Malcolm Fraser. But the fact is that the property where the protest was being held was where, for better or worse, Alan Jones was born and grew up.

Bob Katter is a dyed in the (merino) wool rat-bag, but love him or loath him, he would have to be opposed by Mother Teresa to even look like losing even a couple of Catholic votes in his electorate ... and this is, that despite all his hot-air, Bob works for his people ... no maybes, no buts it's all for the farmers, and that's not just when the cameras are rolling ... that's 24/7. Just try saying anything against him in the bush ... if to are that rash, and you lose only a couple of teeth, you're lucky!

Cheers,

just the coal loader then.

By KilroyofAus on 21 February 2012 - 9:54pm

As i understand coal, it just sits there in a heap and generally does not blow away. And if it's the actual Loading into ships, patently the same amount will be loaded whether it's sat on the wharf area for a year, or just came in on the train the day before, and cause the same problem blowing on the washing.

And if the mining is faster than the export rate, then "Slow Down". Leave Some in the ground for the next generation.

And the Coal Seam Gas Royalties are being directly channelled to the warm fuzzy feeling " Prep Schools" producing, presumably, " preppies ". Various dictionaries attempt to define preppies, none of them flattering in the least.

This country is going to the dogs.

Coal blowing

By JohnCollins on 22 February 2012 - 5:13pm

Ah Kilroy, your understanding of coal and its getting is lacking. I lived for some years about three miles downwind of a coal pit and if you have ever seen miners emerging from the pit at the end of a shift, you can see where some of the minute particles end up and these fellas aren't singing spirituals in blackface.

If you believe all that bunkum about prep schools from of all people, politicians ... then you'll believe anything. These are the same people who sold-off the very profitable QR ... if there's a way to hive off some for something elese, they will find it.

These coal developers are of the same order as the pollies, they want to cover a hundred or so more hectares of productive land with an extension to their coal dump! If we start to run out of foodstuffs, they don't care, they have the money to buy what they want overseas. Actually, they are probably run by overseas companies anyway.

Maybe all the overseas companies who are buying up great lumps of arable farming land, as a hedge against future food shortages in their own country, will start to protest against their mining bretheren ... then maybe not.

Your last comment was right on the money ... but as RIM pointed out ... it's all our own bloody fault ... you pay peanuts you get monkeys ... you pay big money, you still get monkeys ... or maybe an elephant ... in the room. But mostly all you get knuckleheads, the smart ones don't run for public office.

Have you noticed lately who has been all over Gillard like a cheap suit? All the time wearing a stupid grin ... There are few people who I would rather see chucked out on his university-educated rear end at the next election than him ... preferably on a plate with a pink-bat in his idiotic cake hole!

Cheers,

The answer, my Friend is Blowin' in The Wind.

By KilroyofAus on 22 February 2012 - 10:58pm

And coal dust in the air inside the coalmine might, (ok it Did) settle on the sweat-soaked faces of the miners in those confined spaces.

But does it blow in the wind?

And be aware you're speaking with someone who lived downwind of a Sugar mill, and the afternoon fun was swatting the falling cane ash tendrils with a tennis racquet, so this coal blowin' better be real serious.

When looking at change

By KilroyofAus on 21 February 2012 - 6:23pm

Hand up everyone who would like a coalmine pit-head to come up in their back yard The Small " expanding a little bit" takes in all of your backyard, and a dusty access path through your lounge room and garage out to the street

I thought not. How about a complete open cut coal mine on your land?

How about a Windfarm turbine to replace the hills hoist .. Again a Deathly Silence.

How about covering your entire block with solar cells. Again, no takers, alas

All these warm-fuzzy feelings generated by the greenie Bleeding Heart liberals are all ok .... as long as they are at someone else's expense.

Not sure of your stance.

By neville222 on 22 February 2012 - 2:03pm

Not sure of your stance. Certainly one's answer to the questions would be in the negative. But the Hunter Valley people have put up with coal mines for generations as well as the folk of Ipswich. Mining of any sort really only covers a tiny, tiny area of Australia's land mass. This is not Monaco.

And solar panel farms as well as huge windmills marching across the landscape are a horror to look forward to with nil return. I finally up and left where I lived in the city due to increased noisy traffic including trucks that carried quarried material. One can be pestered anywhere.

So I can only presume some of the protesters live in leafy suburbs (as I do now) or in remote noise free bushland where they ride their ponies...la...la...la.

Newsflash.NSW Premier Barry

By neville222 on 1 February 2012 - 7:47am

Newsflash.

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell last month defends his government’s decision to ban standard unleaded petrol from July 1: He had said only recently that it would be introduced but has given in to popular resistance to the idea.

CO2 TAx

By KilroyofAus on 11 January 2012 - 8:58am

Will someone please explain WHY, in this country of over a Million Square Miles of trees, all converting CO2 to wonderful Oxygen, we are . . . . . . Taxing Ourselves into Oblivion.

CO2 tax

rim's picture

By rim on 29 January 2012 - 7:39am

It's really simple KoA. We, as franchise holders, collectively elect simpletons to represent our interests in law-making. The only real debate should be, whether 'we' or 'they' are the greater simpletons.

Sadly, since the lazy-minded electorate never seem to learn from previous mistakes, I think it is 'we'.

Lazy is right!

By JohnCollins on 29 January 2012 - 10:31am

Abso-bloody-right Rim! Until Australians begin to get passionate about the quality of our elected representatives and what they intend to do in Canberra/Brisbane/Town Hall, if elected, it will be just more of the same.

Trouble is 75 per cent of the electorate, vote Labor/Liberal/National/Whatever because their Father/Grandfather/Mother/Sister/Uncle/Aunt/Whatever voted for them, so "I'll do the same" ... they tend to forget, the community-minded, hard-working bloke that good old Granddad voted for, is not the same University educated incompetent glib-talking ratbag, running for the same seat today!

Queensland Labour is running their predictable election-losing strategy, that they run every time they lose an election. They don't tell the election about all the good things they have done, since they've been in office ... they spend their time, and dollars bagging the opposition.

As a professional observer at countless elections over the years, there's a truism that is today as it was way back when ... "the Opposition never wins an election; Labour loses it!" And the first sign in a campaign, is bagging the opposition ... and the more they bag the opposition the surer they are of losing.

We should realise, thay we; the people are the bosses, not the politicians, we don't do what they say we do, they do as we say! The politicians should realise that they are under threat of dissmissal should they cross the line of disapproval ... and retribution should be swift and sure!

Cheers,

They won't answer

By JohnCollins on 11 January 2012 - 1:06pm

Mate, they will not give you a straight answer ... I hope I am alive to see all the eggs on all the faces in Canberra ... brief enough?

Cheers,

NSW ethanol

By neville222 on 4 January 2012 - 5:48pm

It appears that from July 1, NSW will ban the use of regular unleaded and only allow the sale of ethanol blended fuel. Where it is not available stations will still be able to sell unblended for a while. This will mean 'officially' that cars made prior to 1996 could be at a disadvantage. (Qld was to be selling it now, but Bligh stepped in during last year.)

The NSW makers of ethanol said they are not certain of reaching the required amount of ethanol. A Dalby place makes some ethanol, but again, not much. In USA the government has ceased all subsidies for making ethanol as it has proved too expensive to do so.

Also, making ethanol from corn has raised the price of corn beyond the reach of poor nations leaving millions to starve or go with less just to make 'green' motorists in rich countries feel good. Not a good outcome. Yes, Australia may have sugar farms ~ Brazil. Yet I see no figures that prove we could make ethanol for blending a profitable process. Maybe so, maybe not.

Old Hat ...

By JohnCollins on 4 January 2012 - 8:41pm

Hey Nev ... who's been on about ethanol as a replacement for petrol, pretty much since GOT began? Who was it that posted news that Holden were producing ethanol fueled cars and exporting them to Brazil, BEFORE Holden announced the fact?

The Yanks are too clever for their own good ... they keep on announcing all these you beaut technological breakthroughs, without being anywhere near ready to implement them, or figuring out any of their negative implications. We, on the other hand, have no such problems.

The introduction of pure ethanol as fuel, got a whole lot easier to do since the introduction of automotive computers. Sure ethanol has a few problems, the major one being its afinity with water, but an efficient filter system should put that right. Don't forget that during WW II, Australian private cars were often run on ethanol, petrol being rationed and ethanol availablity was no problem, since most people with a basic eduction could make their own, and distill a little extra for medicinal purposes.

Nev, it's not going to be a matter of if you run your car on an ethanol blend, but when. You probably thought E10 expensive at a $1.50 a litre ... just wait a couple of years when you'll have to pay $2.50 a litre for E85 (as used by the V8 Super Cars). The government(s) don't want you to switch to pure ethanol, because so many people would be buying under the counter fuel, or in a DIY situation they couldn't control and their revenue from excise would fall like a ton of bricks!

But the one thing that we and our government can't control is the the fact that petrol is running out ... and the only viable (at the moment), solution to fuelling all those petrol engined vehicles, is ethanol. Surely you don't thing that we (or anyone else), is going to ditch all those millions of cars, just because petrol has become too expensive? And please don't rabbit-on about all those dry pasture solutions or petrol-producing algae; it's more of the US looking down a microscope at research that's probably going to be about 20 years to fruition.

That's why the federal government (during Howard's time), put out all the rubbish about the dreadful problems with engines with ethanol fuel. There are problems with blended fuel that don't occur with the pure stuff. If you don't use your car with its full tank of blended fuel for a couple of months (while you're on that European holiday), the stuff tends to separate and will cause some damage.

There are alternatives. If your petrol-powered car is nearing then end of its economic life (as mine is), you could do as I plan to do in the next couple of years. And that is to buy a diesel. We are seriously considering a Holden Cruise diesel. Sure diesel costs more than petrol, but the diesel being some 20 per cent more efficient (and environmentally cleaner), you use a whole lot less. AND a diesel can be run on waste vegetable cooking oil mix or even pure filtered coconut oil. I even saw an ad for a 40ft boat for sale a few weeks ago, with was built by missionaries, with engines specifically tuned to coconut oil.

But maybe the biggest development is the introduction of free energy generators. There is one being developed by an engineer in Cairns and is said to be nearing the manufacturing stage. It will cost about $1500 and will mean that no one will pay for electricity ever again, and you can bet they'll be fitted to cars soon after. I will make a prediction, that the big electricity firms are aware of the development of these devices, and knowing big money, they will find a way to try to scare people off ... you all know the drill ... "don't buy these, they'll burn down your house ... the radiation will kill within 20 feet, etc etc." anything to keep themselves in business.

I also believe that after an initial reluctance (after all the electricity companies should know ... they are the experts(?)), I predict that some of the charities will begin to fit them to villages in third world countries: and when this shows the public that all is well, we'll begin the see the end of big power companies.

And the end of all that visual pollution ... think of it; no more transmission towers, no more power poles with their multiplicity of (dangerous) wires, no more ugly wind turbines or smoke belching coal powered generators ... think of all that power for free! No more elderly people dying because they can't afford heating/air conditioning, no more zapping of wild-life and all the other dangers, like downed power poles in a storm etc. no more 100 metre wide scars, dissappearing into the distance across otherwise virgin forest.

So there ...

Cheers,

Reality Bites.

By KilroyofAus on 11 January 2012 - 9:29am

Yes the diesel boat, running on coconuts, and made by 'missionaries' to boot. How feel-good can you get? And how Un-believable?

Missionaries built this 40 foot boat? Wearing their cassocks i presume, on the beach on a little coral atoll. That's the message this is putting out, or trying to. All is good until a realist comes in. What did these Cassocked Priests use for timber? or is it from the native fibreglass trees? Where was this 40 foot boat designed?

If i'm going on a large boat, i do not want it designed nor built by men who drop to their knees and seek divine inspiration when a bolt does not fit.

And if i'm going between native-populated islands, with minimal radio and scant rescue services, i especially do not want. . see above.

Or do you merely mean these priests Paid for the boat. with, presumably your money, or mine.

and this engine, which is the main thrust of the piece, was designed to run on coconut oil. You're kidding, right? a forty foot boat at say 10 knots would use about 4 gallons of fuel per hour minimum. Hands up anyone who has seen four gallons of coconut oil !! In fact Hands up anyone who has seen ANY coconut oil.

Not that i doubt coconut oilexists somewhere (though i do), you'd be much better transported by getting a steam engine and powering it with coconut trees.

Expect the expected!

By JohnCollins on 11 January 2012 - 2:01pm

Well I never, a disbeliever. Kilroy you probably haven't seen gun-powder in any quantity either, but that is what the first diesel was built to run on. Just because it's out of your obviously narrow view, does not mean that it doesn't exist! Henry Ford (you've surely heard of him?), built several cars in the 1930s to run on peanut oil ... can you imagine all the pin-striped executive brigade jumping up and down on a bag of peanuts?

My near neighbour who runs a concrete pumping business has his pump, his truck and his ute running on diesel, but he hasn't purchased fuel for about four years ... he makes his own from ethanol-thinned, used and filtered cooking oil from a couple of local fast food outlets ... it's not a dream this is, and has been happening. I will admit that this guy is a diesel engineer by trade, and knows what he is doing.

No where in my post that you so disparagingly refer to, did I mention that missionaries 'designed' the boat nor did I mention that they built it; only that I had seen it adverised. To get 10 knots from a 40ft boat you would be using somewhat more than four litres an hour, but then I suppose you only have your 10 hp outboard tinny to compare it to.

You have obviously spent no time in the islands. Almost every village has at least one press to make their own coconut oil, with scant resources other than coconuts available on land, coconuts play a big part in island life.

I was visited last month by a couple of 'missionaries' who are at present working in the Louisiades, they were passing through and wanted to wish us the compliments of the season (and to taste a little of my beer). I should have sent them to see you ... they would not look out of place in the front row of the Reds and would not have looked kindly on being depicted as cassock-wearing nancy- boys.

You haven't seen four litres (actually you buy it by the half, one and five litre container), of coconut oil, because you don't frequent places where they sell it, I just may be correct in assuming that you don't visit ladies underwear shops either, but despite the dreams of some men, they do however exist!

Like it or not Kilroy my old sohn, you do not have a free ticket to the fount of all knowledge. Most people are aware that mineral oil is quickly running out, and there are a few trying to find alternatives. It's not just the preserve of oil company-funded scientists.

It's all very well to be sarcastic and claim to be a realist, but realism and sarcasm won't get you down to the shops when petrol hits $5 a litre and that's not just realism ... that's applied realism!

I have given up brevity for Lent.

Cheers,

John..."Most people are aware

By neville222 on 12 January 2012 - 10:11am

John..."Most people are aware that mineral oil is quickly running out, "... But most people don't know that we aren't. There are still huge amounts of oil being extracted from Texas where it was supposed to have run out by now.

The BP Gulf accident has now been completely dispersed with no after effects lasting for years as gloomily forecast. USA is a nett exporter of oil surprisingly enough.

And it still has untapped oil resources. e.g. offshore from both east and west coasts; the Arctic, etc. The only thing stopping this are the usual grumbles fro Greens and celebrities who don't want their view of the ocean spoiled...but they don't mind jet setting around the world telling others not to use oil !!

The peak oil time prediction has always defied projections in every instance because of increased ability to locate oil and extract it. Shale oil is increasingly being used. Canada rejected a CO2 tax because one reason was it would have hampered its huge shale to oil program. We have shale oil but is already a "No, no" by the Greens.

If the worst did come to the worst then coal could, expensively, be converted to oil. After all, coal used to be used to make gas for households and cities until natural gas took over. Natural gas is also the big power for electric generation stations. People are not just going to go back to pre-Edison times of zero electricity on tap at all times.

Let Tasmanians and their 12 wacky (12 each state) senators live in caves without any industries and hydro power if they want, but I don't want to.

Oils ain't oils

By JohnCollins on 12 January 2012 - 1:54pm

Nev everone ... but everyone has massive oil reserves, it's just the retrieving of it as makes them problematic. If you count LPG, Australia is a nett oil exporter too. And sure there are umteen ways to make petroleum, but boy oh boy will it cost you. The Poms have found a way to turn peat into oil too ... but it must be turned into a bituminous gunk first, and then into petroleum and quite naturally that will inevitably cost ... bigtime.

It's all very well have all these proven 'reserves,' but the extraction involved makes it all so expensive they are just not economically viable. This, and the fact that there are close to three billion oil-burning vehicles and machines in the world puts us between such a large rock and hard place, that if we don't come up with a truly viable oil alternative soon, the last cars on earth will be Rolls-Royces ... because the RR owners will be the only ones capable of putting fuel in the tanks. And even that fuel will be delivered by sailing tankers with a naval escort.

It's all very well for sceptics, clinging on to the status quo, and playing the oil company's game ... but I'll tell you now (I have limited access to certain fed stats), and the mail is, that we'll be paying more than $2 a litre at the end of 2012! How's your super or pension looking now?

Me? I'm seriously looking at a couple of 50cc scooters.

Cheers,

John, those places where oil

By neville222 on 13 January 2012 - 9:45am

John, those places where oil is available in large quantities are not places that are hard to drill. Quite the opposite. The only thing stopping the drilling are Greens, conservation groups and many very rich celebrities such as Movie stars.

Obama only put a temporary ban on these sites to placate them. The Hollywood mob don't want oil rigs on their precious sea horizon. Ditto for the rich and powerful in their summer mansions around Cape Cod. Alaska could pump far more oil if the NGOs let them. In fact, USA has more oil than Saudi Arabia and is not in dire need of more. Meantime Canada is making $$$ selling oil from its tremendous reserves of shale oil.

We could get a lot of oil from under the GBR but, naturally, that would never be allowed. Thus, we have to import our 'light' oil for petroleum. The oil from the Bass straight is mainly 'heavy' oil suitable for machinery. It is scandalous that we, an energy rich exporter of energy have a government so opposed to using that energy...namely coal and uranium.

Electric vehicles could be useful but not if we keep on the track of wind and solar power which both need instant backup by coal/gas/nuclear power stations. In a recent wind storm in Scotland the biggest windfarm had to shut off its rotors lest they turn too fast ! But the energy company was still paid $400 000 by the government under contract even though no power was being generated. Talk about stupid.

Dunno Nev ...

By JohnCollins on 13 January 2012 - 12:09pm

I have never heard or seen any reports of oil under the GBR. I think you would be hard pressed (given the reef's life) to find anything more than compacted limestone, deeper than enyone would care to drill.

As to the rest, I'll reserve judgement until I have had a chance to look at some figures.

Anywho! Just about everyside of the argument agrees that oil in-the-pumps is becoming dearer and rarer and that not only means less fuel, but less plastics, chemicals of all descriptions, lubricants, detergents, soaps etc etc! You can have one, or the other, but not both.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to develop something that's renewable, and cleaner, such as ethanol, and use the remaining oil resource to develop better artificial materials? If the government realised that brains and politics aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, they could take control of all alcohol fuel production, put the CSIRO in charge of making it a more viable fuel source, and with the same excise would be supplying a safe green fuel for everyone and pocketing the profits, to be used to benefit all Australians!

Cheers,

John, well some do think oil

By neville222 on 14 January 2012 - 5:25am

John, well some do think oil is to be found under the GBR. The GBR is not one long continuous coral wall. It consists of numerous but isolated coral reefs and atolls. There are lots of spaces in between. That's how big ships get in and out. No one blasted the GBR to make those.

As far as products are concerned, I am not a chemist, but I think many of them can come from coal itself. I'm sure nylon and rayon do. Nylon stockings were given by Yanks to Aussie and UK women and I'm sure precious oil was not used in WW2 to make them.

I do not like calling ethanol 'renewable' even though I know it is. The trouble is with ethanol is that to be renewable it needs to use arable land in a world that could easily feed all people as long as land is used wisely. Already, there is controversy about 'good' palm oil plantations taking up the space used by orangutans in Indonesia. Many more species and trees would be used up just for ethanol. I'm not a foaming in the mouth conservationist, but I'd rather pay heaps more for fuel made from coal if need be.

John, I see in today's CM an

By neville222 on 16 January 2012 - 7:53am

John, I see in today's CM an old item in the Letters to Ed' page how Joh Petersen was tempted to drill for oil in the GBR region in 1981.

Also in today's CM is an interesting item suggesting that there could be large 'Texas' size/amounts of oil off the east coast of the North Island, NZ. Be funny if NZ were to become the saviour of Australia regarding oil supplies. They would keep 'reminding' us forever.

Still reading the e-book about Edison and Tesla. I'm up to where Tesla had a split with Edison about DC vs AC current. DC was limited to one mile but was safe. AC could go for miles but was capable of causing death.

Also, Tesla had invented brushless dynamos but no one was interested nor were they interested in his electric motors because good old steam was popular.

News reports are very

By neville222 on 21 January 2012 - 10:12am

News reports are very conflicting. One of the latest I read says Australia is fast running out of oil in the Bass Strait. Well, I knew that. But it also says we lack a 90 day storage that we should have for emergency. It goes on to support the case for liquefaction where coal is made into oil...e.g. Germany in WW2; South Africa to this day; etc. But it is expensive and the Greens would only allow it over their dead bodies...(not such a bad idea.)

Costs

By JohnCollins on 21 January 2012 - 11:28am

Nev, it's not just a matter of doing it ... SA had to because during apartheid the country had to have an alternative, because they were under a general embargo, and could only import a limited amount of oil. So did Germany during WWII, but for other reasons.

Sure we could convert coal into oil and mine shale oil, but you have to take the base economics into account. These two processes tend to use more energy making the oil that is in the amount produced. In other words, it's no bloody good producing a litre and a half of oil, if it takes you two litres to produce it!

Cheers,

John, I don't think oil is

By neville222 on 22 January 2012 - 8:29am

John, I don't think oil is used to get oil from coal...otherwise the oil being used would be used for the purposes such as transport. Energy is needed to convert the coal/shale to oil. And it would be a lot of energy as well as being expensive. However, oil, then petrol, is desperately needed for ordinary transport. Hybrid cars will never, ever do. But whatever plan is taken to maintain our living standards the Greens would be aghast and prevent such undertakings as liquifaction.

By the way I would like to add a piece from the Piers Akerman blog today...

QUOTE...

Almost without exception, vehicles built before 1986 should not use ethanol because the bio-fuel will probably damage the seals in the engine. Even some vehicles being built now should not use ethanol, according to their manufacturers.

Users of whipper snippers, chain saws, pumps and other two-stroke engines are also warned against the use of ethanol.

Petrol stations will still sell premium octane 95 and 98 fuels after July 1, at their usual premium prices.

In the marine industry, ethanol is a known engine wrecker. In a marine environment, ethanol-blended petrol has a very short shelf life, according to the Boating Industry Association and the NSW Boat Owners Association.

Ethanol is hygroscopic (it absorbs moisture) and has a tendency to bind with water molecules, and then separate from the petrol. This can occur within weeks, especially in hot and humid conditions.

When it enters the combustion chamber of the engine, this ethanol and water combination can cause engine failure.

As the ethanol and water combination separates from the petrol, a highly corrosive by-product called “boundary-layer” can be created,which can damage rubber and plastic components in the fuel delivery system, and even some aluminium and fibreglass fuel tanks.

Also, ethanol is a solvent which can mobilise deposits in fuel tanks and lines, which may cause blockage of fuel filters and fuel delivery systems.

Boaters must ensure that only ethanol-free petrol is used onboard. Options include buying more expensive, higher octane rated or premium petrol, and ethanol-free regular grade petrol - available from some marinas, which already charge hefty premiums on fuel sales.

The addition of “bio” components to mineral diesel reduces the shelf life of the fuel and even in concentrations as low as 5 per cent of volume, the blended fuel can “break down” in as little as six months.

Fuel break down can result in accelerated engine wear, poor lubrication, and blockage of oil and fuel filters. This is particularly dangerous for vessels voyaging offshore, which turn over fuel slowly.

Biodiesel lacks oxidation stability and is an excellent medium for microbial growth, known as “diesel bug”, which can cause blockages in lines and filters, while rubber and plastic components in the fuel system can be damaged by both aggressive forms of diesel bug, and the solvent properties of some bio-components commonly found in bio-diesel.

The introduction of bio-fuels was pushed by the Manildra Group, the most generous donor to Australian political parties. In 2009-10, Manildra gave $209,231 to the ALP, $54,181 to the Liberal Party and $35,294 to the Nationals, according to the Australian Electoral Commission.

New evidence from the Productivity Commission suggests Manildra ethanol is less efficient at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the

50 per cent target set by the government’s regulator, the Office of Biofuels...
UNQUOTE.

Research

By JohnCollins on 22 January 2012 - 9:56am

Nev, you have obviously put a lot of time into your research, you could however have saved yourself a lot of time by reading some of my previous posts! Unfortunately people such as Piers Akerman are laymen, just like you and me and tend to hand on "expert advise" learned from someone else. Many of these "experts" have some kind of agenda, and tend to mix the truth in with a lot of 'porkys'. I rather think they are a little more sinister than mere ill-informed 'greenies' and probably have a tie-in with big oil conglomerates who really don't want to know about ethanol, mainly because they have no vested interest and no money in its production.

To reiterate; when using bio-diesel, it should have an anti-bacterial agent added at the time of manufacture. So should ordinary diesel, if it is expected to stand unused for a long period ... and speaking of standing unused, marine diesels are prone to lie unused for some time, but the bacterialogical problem is well known in the marine field. As to ethanol, the same applies, except that when mixed with petrol and left standing for a long period, it too will separate, and cause problems. A fix for smaller outboards, is to give the tank a damn good shake up before use ... simple intit?

For the umteeth time ... Do you honestly think that V8 Supercars and their owners would risk engines that cost upwards of $500,000 by using E85, if there was a danger of destroying their investment?

As to old engines, I have also said in several posts, that plastic and rubber (synthetic), seals and unions should be changed for metal. Pre 1950s cars and trucks were usually fitted with same, and also tended to have a lower compression ratio (see 36 and 40 hp VWs with 6:1), so they have no problem running on pure ethanol, as many did during WWII, particularly in Qld.

You also misunderstood as to the costs associated with the manufacture of and the production of shale oil and oil from coal. WHat I meant/said was that the cost of the energy required to produce these oils is at present greater than the value of the end product ... in other words you can't sell a litre of this oil for $2 if you have to spend $5 (equavalent), to produce it!

Cheers,

Tesla was right but Edison had the PR

By JohnCollins on 16 January 2012 - 9:26am

Trouble was, Edison was a national hero and had all the newspapers in his pocket, Tesla was seen as a foreign interloper.

Just saw an interesting video, where Dr Hal Puthoff explained where they got the term "Zero-point Energy." Puthoff is a well known Laser Physicist and Quantum scientist. "If you were to cool the universe down to absolute Zero there would be no thermal activity. However Zero Point Energy would still exist and be active."

It seems to me that it is another term for "dark energy" which is a little like Steven Spielberg's "Force" ... it is everwhere, all pervading and all encompassing.

Cheers,

I'm still reading the book.

By neville222 on 21 January 2012 - 10:40am

I'm still reading the book. Yes, Edison who used to shun publicity had to use the papers when competitors swiped his light bulb before the patent ran out. One was George WESTINGHOUSE whose name survives today. Edison's company was the Edison GENERAL ELECTRIC co' whose name survives.

Tesla was foreign but had great ideas. His brushless (impossible) generators and dynamos were taken up by Westinghouse. They were disdained by Edison. Edison's failure was to see that AC even above ground was going to supercede his limited underground DC distribution.

He just couldn't stand others being better inventors than he was despite his name forever being praised to this day. Tela said that Edison would try to find a needle in a haystack by picking out each straw.

Kodak has made the same mistake of being too self assured. They even invented digital photography but delayed producing such cameras because they didn't want to lose their film market.

So disappointed

By KilroyofAus on 11 January 2012 - 9:05am

"no more 100 metre wide scars, dissappearing into the distance across otherwise virgin forest." and here i was thinking you were talking about bitumen.

You just want the power lines brought down.

One wonders Why. visual pollution? Carbon Dioxide? or just because.

on the line of CO2, remember it's the green stuff that converts CO2 to Oxygen, from the light that comes from the sun.

If you can see brown dirt, that is not good. If you see green on the ground, it's making you oxygen, and IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it's Grass or Trees.

Oxygen

By JohnCollins on 11 January 2012 - 2:06pm

Actually I was thinking of all the clear-felling to make way for power transmission lines, because without the trees, the bitumen is pointless ... come to think of it, so is the transmission line.

Look back a previous posts ... I have been having the same grizzle for some time.

Cheers,

Oxygen

By KilroyofAus on 11 January 2012 - 3:41pm

Yes, my point is that Oxygen is made, from sunlight, by chlorophyll, the green stuff in plants.

And as long as the sunlight is intercepted by green stuff before it hits the brown dirt, it makes Oxygen.

It Does Not Matter whether the Chlorophyll is in the topmost leaves of a Mighty River Redgum on the banks of the Diamantina River, or in a blade of Couch Grass under a Zillion Volt Power Line. you get the same oxygen.

Inhale, and bless all green stuff

Electric Utopia

Brackenboy's picture

By Brackenboy on 10 January 2012 - 9:33pm

Bring it on, John !!!

John, are you sure you aren't

By neville222 on 5 January 2012 - 8:24am

John, are you sure you aren't mixing the 'free electricity generators' with the refrigerator sized nuclear power plants that GE are pushing? They are great for small towns, etc. They have been making them since the 1950s in order to fit in sub'ships and carriers. (one was even put in a B-52 bomber!) After all, ships can't tow a full size nuclear station.

I believe there is more oil reserves to be tapped than ever. It's just a matter of exploration and clever drilling. I bet the GBR has huge reserves but the Greens would never allow it even if the drills were 100s of kms away.

Diesel may be fine, but again there is the problem of obtaining it without depleting some valuable food resource of some kind...it's like using sugar cane land for ethanol vs land for coconut trees.

During WW2 my father got free petrol. He and the family lived on a grazing property where the road led to a major army live ammunition training base before troops went to PNG. They gave him a barrel now and again in return for fresh food, etc. After the war many cattle were lost from standing on UXBs.

NO!

By JohnCollins on 5 January 2012 - 10:37am

Nev, I suggest you do a little reading ... Google 'Free Energy'. To even suggest that I would make such slip as mixing free energy with something like a nuclear plant is silly. No one in their right mind would suggest a nuclear plant, minatrure or otherwise, in every home ... Particularly at 1500 bucks! The plutonium alone would run to 200 times that.

Read again ... I said FREE, no cost, no input, no waste ... FREE. The inventor in Cairns has a website.

Cheers,

Funny how coincidences occur.

By neville222 on 6 January 2012 - 4:07pm

Funny how coincidences occur. 2 days ago I downloaded a Kindle book about the history of the development of electricity generation and there is a chapter re' Tesla. Meantime I did look up your 'free generation'. I suspend judgement.

However, I am a sceptic at heart. Remember how Joh Petersen was convinced a Ford Falcon could run on water? There was even a public demonstration with all the media, but no one was allowed to actually look closely at the secret device.

As for nuclear energy from units the size of refrigerators I was meaning ones for cities like Mt. Isa, Toowoomba, etc. Their councils could afford them. No plutonium is used...not even in huge stations. Only enriched uranium is used. Plutonium is a by-product if a nation wants to turn spent fuel rods into it. (e.g. N. Korea, Iran.)

P.S. many years ago a university in Salt Lake City, Utah, announced that it had produced energy from cold water. It was termed 'cold water fusion'. The term fusion' was important because they were claiming to have combined 2 hydrogen atoms in the process to create one helium atom. This happens in the sun at millions of degrees and cause some energy to be released which we feel as heat and light.

In science there is a law that says energy cannot be created or destroyed...only converted to mass or back to energy. That's what E=mc2 means. (m = mass) Anyway, after much investigation the science world judged the whole thing to be a hoax.

I just wish they would investigate global warming claims as much. After all, where do the most species in the world thrive and live? The tropics of course. So heat is no bad thing to life there.

Funny how coincidences occur.

By neville222 on 6 January 2012 - 4:02pm

I just wish they would investigate global warming claims as much. After all, where do the most species in the world thrive and live? The tropics of course. So heat is no bad thing to life there.

repeat ...

By JohnCollins on 11 January 2012 - 2:08pm

Don't worry about repeating yourself Nev ... it's called 'Old Timers' Disease.'

Cheers,

JC er I think.

Appreciative ...

By JohnCollins on 7 January 2012 - 10:54am

Hi Nev, while I appreciate that you have been to the trouble of looking up this information and as an ex-teacher and no doubt still driven to diseminate as much information as possible, I should point out that I worked for some time for the Atomic Energy Commission at its Maroubra HQ ... I also have (or had), a very high security clearance.

The free energy devices I was referring to is supposedly a development of Tesla's in a very small unit, which is about the side of a suitcase. This is just one such development worldwide and I am lead to believe that it is not far from manufacture. If you can't find the site, I have it somewhere and I can send it to you.

As for the so-called 'cold fusion' it was hailed as the breaktrough of the century, but when asked to demonstrate it ... it failed miserably. Anyway if you can produce electricity with no moving parts, no input and no danger, at all! Why would you want to mess about with devices which produce radioactivity?... no matter what amounts and as an added disincentive, are potentially lethal over a wide area?
Cheers,

Now for a touch of reality

By KilroyofAus on 8 January 2012 - 1:58am

If I were to paraphrase the discussion so far, it would come down to Two Words " Free Energy". Which is nice positive freindly woids. Now, if I inject a small dosage of reality and change the name to something meaning exactly, and i DO mean exactly, the same, you'll surely have a 'hissy fit' so strap yourself in now.

"Perpetual Motion Machines.". Yep the self same thing. I tie up your free energy machine to my ferris wheel,and lo and behold, it never ever Ever stops turning.

Hey Kilroy ...

http://www.itwillpass.com/facts_free_energy_lutec_1000.shtml

By JohnCollins on 8 January 2012 - 2:06pm

Kilroy, apropos my following post, you should try below

Yes yes yes , Free energy has been around for yonks.

By KilroyofAus on 8 January 2012 - 6:58pm

so have water-fuelled cars, and now , what's this stuff called again. Whatever, I read this ELEVEN YEARS OLD ARTICLE with it's "rubbery figures". and really laughed out loud.

It's eleven years since they mad the first one (see photo), and between then and 2008 there was no action on the matter. Then, apparently in 2008 they sold it for Thirty Million Dollars.

So clearly, General electric has this locked up with all the other inventions they've sequestered from Mankind's Benefactors.

Presumably in Area 51.

Ah ye of little faith ...

By JohnCollins on 8 January 2012 - 8:40pm

Presumably you'll be the one still paying Energex etc their exorbitant fees while the rest of us are on the freebie waggon?

Reminds me of a gentleman and his family who lived next door to my uncle's farm. Some idiot had fed him years worth of horror stories about the 'dangers' of electricity, so when, after the war, those that had DC generators ditched them and were hooked up to the grid ... all except this bloke, who had never had a gennie and even though his house was bare metres from the road, and hence minimal cost to join the power cable, he refused. Many years later, luckily all of his kids had left home, he was headed to bed and kicked over a mantle-type kerosene 'safety' lantern, and he and his wife were burnt to death in their house.

I have seen a lot of thing come into being that had never before seemed possible; like a piece of irradiated wood that bluntens the sharpest hack-saw ... I have this at home, so I know it exists. I have often watched water deviners at work ... while all the skeptics (even Dick Smith) say that it can't be done, but I have watched it work. My father was as straight laced as they come, watched while professional drillers and so-called scientists from Uni of Western Sydney, worked and mapped and echo-sounded and used ground penetrating radar for more than a week to find pottable water on the golf club of which my father was manager. When they finally pronounced that there was nothing but one spot of brackish water on the club grounds (the club is bounded by a tidal river estuary) ... he said to everyone's (including mine) surprise, now I'll try it my way! He called a professional water deviner from the near country area.

It took this man approximately an hour and a half, to call in the drill and it hit pottable water at 200 feet ... that was about 20 years ago and the water is till being used at the club.

I don't have a great deal of faith in skeptics.

Cheers,

Let's Zero in on Water Diviners

Click here to see the application.

By KilroyofAus on 28 January 2012 - 10:56pm

Here is a copy of a WebPage offering a Prize of One MIllion Dollars . Water Diviners Queue up here please .........

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

Click here to see the current $1 million statement which shows the current amount in our prize account.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Log of Applicants

Last Updated on Thursday, 09 June 2011 11:55

Applic ........ http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

FAQ ...... http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/...

Examples ..... http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

I believe i have issued this information before,

All about M-o-n-e-y

By JohnCollins on 29 January 2012 - 10:49am

Kilroy this 'prize' has about the same veracity as 'Randi', and that is nil. When did you last hear or see anyone make an attempt at this money? I have seen the actual 'contract', and it has more loop-holes than the main wall at the Kremlin ... all in the skeptics favour.

You haven't heard of any, because even the charlatans are not that stupid! They say they want proof ... why? Everyone else is happy to go along with what they've been doing since Adam was a pup. It's the skeptics who make a big thing of it ... real people don't give a rat's bum what the Australian Skeptics believe ... they believe in what works for them, and the others are the poorer for their lack of faith, or willingness to give something a try.

Cheers,

John, I think (according to

By neville222 on 9 January 2012 - 5:21am

John, I think (according to my on line dictionary) the term is 'dowser'. My father-in-law did this and was right all the time so I have seen it done.

To be a sceptic these days is unfashionable. The so called experts who believe in global warming call anyone who is sceptical in derisory tones. Yet, sceptical is the antonym of 'gullible', thus the believers are calling themselves names. Many of these are non scientists like Al Gore, Tim Flannery (non climatologist), Prof' Garnaut (economist), Kevin Rudd, Bob Brown, Kate Blanch, many Hollywood celebrities, the Gay B C, the rest of the Greens, etc. Astonishingly, they have the gall to claim lay people should not have an opposite opinion.

The very basis of the "Enlightenment" over the past 400 years rests on the formation of science as evidence based rather than faith based. At that time books were being printed. Lots of them were science 'journals' where true scientists could share their knowledge and have it proven by others, or, shown to be wrong. Appeal to authority alone such as the church was thrown overboard.

So too, should appeal to the IPCC and its political agenda be not used as evidence for climate change. The IPCC won't allow research papers against global warming to be included in its reports. Politicians and journalists can not be bothered to find this out, but a few extremely dedicated ones have. Science has been reduced to a level of 'lobbying' like industry for funds and favours.

If, then,free energy, etc, exists then it is up to its proponents to lobby harder or get backers who will do that for them. Science has degenerated so much that the individual 'Eureka' type is no longer able to be heard among the crowd.

We have a Dowser ?

By KilroyofAus on 9 January 2012 - 11:37am

You'll no doubt be extremely interrested in a Million Dollar ( US Dollars ) challenge put up and fully funded by the sceptic "The Great Randi".

Read some about it at http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/.

Basically, a little way out of town is a grid of pipes buried and with valves to control which of the pipes has water in them. To earn your million, walk over the area with your coat-hanger / piece of yak-fur, / Kevlar bicycle spoke / whatever, say where are the pipes with water,and carry home your fortune, never have to work again.

Been going some years now, still un-claimed.

Randi ain't great!

By JohnCollins on 9 January 2012 - 9:16pm

I have met "Randi" and belieeeve me, he is anything but great! He is the the absolute antithesis of everything I like about the average Yank. He is, in fact the quintessential ugly American, a self-promoting, opinionated stage magician. He was present at Dick Smiths much publicised testing ground for dowsers, and announced that he would 'test' it himself. Surprise, surprise, he didn't find any water, because someone had forgotten to turn on the tap ... the whole thing wouldn't work because it took more than half an hour for the pump to deliver enough of the wet stuff, and since Dick was a no show as well, we all had a good giggle and went home. I don't think the place exists anymore.

I have spoken to several professional dowsers about this set-up, and their comments are as one ... it will never get any result, because it is 'dead' water, whatever that means. At that time I was still contributing to several ag magazines and newspapers, and did a small article, much to the amusement of their editors, and drew some letters from farmers, to the effect that their fathers and their grand-fathers had used dowsers successfully and so had they, and they consider Dick and all his skeptic mates a lot of city idiots.

I will add that a very nice chap named Tim Mendham who was the editor of one of the magazines in a company in which I was a sub, was pretty high up in the skeptics and we both played endless practical jokes on one another ... eg we put up a sign behind Tim's desk reading 'Australian Septics'.

And by the way, I know that he calls himself James Randi ... but his real name is an unpronounceable Polish one and Randi is only a stage name.

Cheers,

I thought you'd never ask ...