Current Size: 100%
Ethanol
Have any of our friends changed their vehicle from petrol to ethanol/mix? We are of the opinion that we'll stay on unleaded then when we get a new vehicle we'll make sure it's one that is made for this, but it would be good to hear from others about their experiences. An ethanol manufacturer went into receivership this week. I wonder if it is because of lack of support from the people for ethanol, or were govenment subsidies withdrawn? Linda
I see where two thirds of
I see where two thirds of hybrid car buyers never wish to buy one again. Also I saw on TV that a Norwegian electric car firm, THINK, tried its hand in USA. It went bust trying to sell tiny cars at over $40,000 each. However, I notice TOYOTA is plugging its Prius at not much over $20,000. They must be losing on it, but it may not be so silly. My first new car, a Corolla, was $2,000 and people sneered at such a small car. But Toyota's reputation was built on the rapid sales of it plus its reliability. Hence, capturing the market by stealth was a good idea. Maybe electric cars can enter the minds of people this way.
However, it still does not answer the Q of how electric power will be provided. The MORE power stations produce the less they are able to charge per Kw. The LESS power means higher charges. At least, that's what happened through the 20th Century until all the stuff about 'clean, green, energy' started to drive a stake through the idea of huge power stations.
Coal Conversion
Well Nev, I'm back after a severe case of ISP-itis and since resolved. And I've been itching to get back, because myself (bad grammar), and several others owe you a big appology.
In the past, on the subject of alternative fuels, we (mostly me), have rubbished your continuing championship of the conversion of coal, into a viable alternative to petroleum products.
Well mate, you were right! I see where a Queensland miner has flown his personal jet (a Cessna Citation), from Perth all the way across the continent to (I think) Lucinda, purely on fuel which his own patented process has refined from coal. This gentleman says that he can produce jet fuel (kerosene), ULP, and diesel for as little as 20c a litre. Of course by the time he shows a profit in the tanker, the servo takes his cut, and the government adds its exorbitant excise, he reckons it will sell at the bowser for under $1 a litre. The same gentleman says that he personally has reserves that should last for many years.
Mind you, I still think that there's a free energy alternative out there, though it will probably have to wait until some disenfranchised energy maverick, or an energy-poor, resource-rich country develops the technology to put all the big money energy sellers out of business ... Oh how I long for that day ... or are my tall-poppy secateurs drawn from their scabbard prematurely?
Cheers,
JC
Well, I'm becoming very
Well, I'm becoming very pessimistic as the days pass about Australia's energy and economic future re' coal.
You have Christine Milne and her Greens confidently predicting that in years to come other countries will flock to Australia to use our cheap (?) renewable electric resources in order to create industries. These renewables are of course wind and solar with unproven deep hot rock and wave power.
We 'already' have at hand the cheapest power in the world via coal. So, them renewables will have to be surely marvels of engineering. Also, her and her party want to see coal mines shut. Well, their wish is coming true. BHP, etc, are shutting mines now. And the prospect of coal being shipped from more QD ports is under a cloud due to woes and worries about the GBR.
The NSW and Vic' governments don't mind especially as Vic' ramps up its exports of brown coal. So QLD will be bereft of a big coal export industry. However, I'm darned if I can fathom the Greens/Labor expectation that the MRT will be sufficient to spread the wealth among all Australians.
China CO2
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.
Memory of alternative fuel
Below appears a web site that may be of some back of the mind interest to anyone of our age. In doing some research for an article I was researching for a US magazine, on (Kilroy take note), the use of coconut oil in diesel engines by island fishermen (mostly Micronesians), I came across an article by a medical researcher, who has discovered that extra pure coconut oil as a supplement, can in most cases reduce the severity of alzheimers disease! So I'll leave you with the address and all you good folk can make up your own minds ... what the hell ... even if it doesn't work, it tastes nice and it can't hurt you.
Cheers,
JC
http://my.cbn.com/pg/file/06823b10-ae06-4364-be15-72e351272f98/read/8374897/fight-alzheimers-disease-with-coconut-oil/
You are wrong my friend all
You are wrong my friend all modern cars can run ethanol without any modification and most cars back to 1986 can run up 50-80% with no modification. With very slight tuning the older cars can run just as well as modern cars. Diesels and jets engines can run ethanol with minor modifications also. There is more power better mileage and the engines last three times as long. And as for modification any car that has a computer it is a matter of buying a module and plugging it in for optimum tuning for ethanol in older cars.
Your methanol idea is interesting but seems cost prohibitive. Most methanol is a by product of the natural gas industry if I remember correctly and expensive. If your talking about making your own then the process is much more complicated then making ethanol. Plus methanol is caustic and hard on engines made of aluminium I don't know if the process of it being converted to gasoline changes that or not?
Ethanol is not caustic and needs no new or experimental technology and can be made in the backyard inexpensively if necessary. Read Alcohol Can be a Gas by David Bloom alcoholcanbeagas.com.... it is probably the most comprehensive book on the subject and well researched and tested. Check the other links in my previous post in this thread too.
This is a small part of a post in a world wide forum of professional engineers ... this is not rubbish from some wide-eyed garden shed experimenter. It also contains an English error, which I am finding more and more commonly in our school kids ... school teachers wake up, or we'll find 'THEN' replacing 'THAN.'
Cheers,
JC
It's news to me that ethanol
It's news to me that ethanol generates more power and better 'mileage'. Do you have any references to back this up?
In my opinion the use of agricultural land for ethanol is a crime concocted by the scare mongering ex Communist Greens. They hate the big oil companies and think anyone against global warming (now known as climate change) is in their pay. I wish!
It's like the clean green energy future that is a dream which will never be fulfilled. What happened to carbon sequestration? Gone.
What happened to Flim Flannery's hot rocks scheme in SA? Gone.
What happened to the "It will never rain heavy in Australia in our lifetime story? Gone.
What happened to all the wind farms overseas subsidised at great expense? Gone, well almost. They contribute only 0.2% of world energy. It's almost as bad for ethanol which only contributes to world power at 0.3%. That's zero point three percent. And the suppliers of ethanol can't complete their contacts which is why NSW and QLD has held back from the mandatory introduction of ethanol in petrol.
Gees Nev
Mate for the umteenth time ... in Australia, we don't have to "use agricultiral land", that's a furfy put out by oil companies in the US! THEY use agricultural land, they (currently) use corn starch to make ethanol. The mash, after the starch has converted into sugar, can be used as a stock feed ( as most of their crop is anyway) and it is even more nutritious than with the starch. You've heard the expression "grain-fed-beef?" We can use the sugar cane farms that our knuckle-headed government recently closed down ... sugar is the most direct feedstock for ethanol. Brazil has been since the 1970s, why can't we?
Tim Flannery interests me not a jot ... forget wind farms, I have a friend with four wind-turbines on his property. The land is up for sale, because he can't get any sleep ... and the nearest turbine is half a mile away!
I have also said it before, but I'll say it again ... time is fast approaching when we will need either a cheap transportable source of fuel, or a magic battery that will keep a car running for more than 500 kilometres, so it's no bloody good grizzling that this is better than that, or what happened to Tim Flannery's flamable knickers, we will soon have to make up our minds which way we're going to jump, and do it; or it will be just as it always has ... good old Oz will be stuck buying technology from everywhere else.
Cheers,
JC
You say, "Tim Flannery
You say, "Tim Flannery interests me not a jot." But he should. He is the chairman of the Climate Control department earning $180000 of taxpayers money for 3 days work a week. Plus he receives a phoney chair in a university from Panasonic. He is regarded as a guru in climate science yet he is not a climate scientist nor is he even a meteorologist.
Now, all that wouldn't matter except for the fact that the likes of him and Al Gore have had a HUGE influence over politicians, politics and the media. So much so it is the reason we are paying $23 a ton for CO2 when prices are about $3 at the most world wide on the stock market.
Also, following his prediction in 2007 that we would NEVER see rain again that would fill our dams the governments in all states built $billion desalination plants rather than dams. It is why subsidised windfarms will be forced on us. Now all of this is NOT insignificant and can't just be ignored with a shrug of the shoulders. We should be out there with baseball bats telling these fraudsters to watch out.
I'm not sure what you mean by
I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting sugar cane land is not agricultural land. If it's not then what is it? In any case, Brazil is a huge land which can grow far more area of sugar than we could ever hope to. And even so, the amount of extra sugar cane land would be enormous if we were to have 100% ethanol in our tanks. It's just not a viable proposition wonderful as it might be.
Better would be converting coal to oil even if expensive.
(As an aside, I don't know why the CSG is going on when gas used to be taken from coal years ago. Those big gasometers would dominate the landscape, but are gone now. I do agree that 'fracking' is a dangerous process in the long term and is one area where I see eye to eye with protesters.)
There is enough coal to last the world for hundreds of years. It is cheap. And if the nuclear-phobics don't want to use uranium then there is absolutely no alternative. That is, no alternative for cheap electricity, no alternative for obtaining oil if oil really does run out...although that fear has been alive for 100 years and never come to realization yet.
I don't believe oil is just old, crushed vegetation. Oil is now recovered from such huge depths that it boggles the mind to think that way. Some of it must have come from space just as all our minerals and material came from. As I once said, Titan is a minor planet made of stuff that could be put on your car as fuel. It rains oil on the planet. Australia is full of minerals but just not lucky enough to be above one of these oil pools that well up from far below the Earth's crust.
Oh dear, Oh dear ...
Well, Nev that 'agricultural' land is not agricultural land any more, since our bright government closed it all down.
Look at the map, Brazil is only marginally larger than Australia, (8,511,965 as against 7,686,848 square kilometres), and no it can't grow much more sugar cane than we can, mainly because it has a vast area that is remote and inaccessible. Plus Brazil still needs to feed its self, (it has a population of around 120 million), so the idea that Brazil would turn all its arable land over to cane production is frankly ludicrous.
The UN is putting a lot of pressure on Brazil, to preserve its large forested area (the Matto Grosso), and severely limit development of this area called; "the Lungs of the World."
Converting coal into oil is, as you say expensive ... according to Coal Authority figures released in 2007, the base price would be about $2.80 a litre. And that's like crude oil, before it is refined into all its constituents. Which would bring petrol price to about $9 per litre (base wholesale), and that's using a South African system that's pretty efficient. Could you afford to run a four-seater car at say, $9.50 a litre? I couldn't, and most people would be reduced to scooters. And please don't try to play the public transport card, 'cause we'd end up paying for it one way or another!
As far as 'Fracking' is concerned, I would much rather have a glass of nice clear water than a couple of litres of CSG, which if we are allowed to have a an independent inquiry, I suspect that it will come to that.
How soon do you think it will be before we can begin mining Titan? 120 years? 200 years? 300 years? Sorry, but I plan to be long dead before they can swing a pick.
I have worked for the old Atomic Energy Commission, under Sir Philip Baxter, and believe me, you don't want any kind of nuclear facility sitting in the block next to you. If I may paraphrase an old RAAF air-crew addage ... There are old Nuclear plants and there are successful nuclear plants ... but there are NO old successful nuclear plants! And before you mention it; the RE at Lucas Heights is, as the title implies, a Research Establishment, used for research and medical isotopes. It would be lucky to boil a dozen eggs, plus it has been rebuilt and renewed several times, so it's not particularly old.
Nev, we will probably need an alternative transportable fuel of some kind, preferably one in which we can all keep our internal combustion engines intact. And we're going to need it (Kilroy's car with a memory notwithstanding), in two to five years, before petrol climbs to a luxury level ...
So Nev ... what have you got, something that we can get used to right now. How about steam? But no, we'd have to change our engines (or cars) ... Maybe we'll ask the army, they have vehicles that will run on anything that is liquid and will burn, turps, kerosene, thinners, whiskey name your poison.
Cheers,
JC
Well I thought you were
Well I thought you were bragging about how Brazil has used ethanol from sugar cane for decades. I assume that is 100% ethanol and even if it's just for domestic consumption it would require larger areas of land than we could justify. Besides, Brazil is now drilling for oil off its coast in large quantities. Brazil has a larger economy than the UK now.
As for price re' coal to oil motorists would buy it no matter how expensive. I can remember joking in the 1970s with my petrol service station owner that petrol would never get to $1 a gallon (4 L). And although there is some oil in the Bass Strait it is not 'sweet' oil that can be refined for cars, etc. It is 'heavy' oil used in ships. What happens is that we trade our oil for sweet oil which is what our refineries use. But if our heavy oil depletes we will have to import sweet oil at an increasing loss.
When I mentioned Titan I was explaining that all material on earth has accumulated from space. Hydrocarbon chains that go to make up oil are freely floating in space. They can arrive via comets, etc. All the water on earth came here by comets. Even life may have come here from space because space is full of amino acids and other complicated molecules needed to start life.
Gold, oxygen, carbon, ALL the elements came together to form earth and the other planets. Space is not empty and has enough 'stuff' to cretae what you like. My point was that since Titan is made of what we call oil then it is not silly to suggest our oil mainly came from a similar source...space. I was not suggesting we mine oil on Titan.
It's a matter of cost
Nev, maybe motorists will buy petrol no matter what the cost, but at the expense of what? Food? Don't forget that we deliver 90 per cent of our goods now by road, at the expense of rail, and if fuel goes up by the projected massive amount so will everything else! And remember, even good rail is diesel powered these days. Mate, to buy fuel; no matter how it's obtained, we have got to be able to afford it. God knows, it is fast approaching the time when half the motoring public CAN'T afford it, or their downsizing their means of transport.
It's not a matter of who is right and who is wrong in our little debate ... the problem remains the same. We need an alternative source of fuel NOW! And right now, the only viable thing I can see, understanding that we likewise cannot affort new specialised vehicles, is ethanol and bio-diesel.
These fuels are available NOW, they require very little modification to existing engines (in the case of bio-diesel virtually none), by the time we factor in competition from production companies, the price should be about half that of petrol (provided the government can keep its sticky fingers to itself), with ethanol, and bio-diesel they are nearly 80 per cent cleaner than petrol, so you can trade all the exhaust emision controls for about 15 per cent more power by simply removing them. The use of these fuels would see our country free from the vagarities and nutty Arab politics, and a whole lot richer for it. And while I tend to repeat myself ... it's available NOW! Gas powered vehicles are better off, they can be powered by Hydrogen, which is a major component of CNG, Propane, Butane, etc anyway.
Nev, can you suggest something that meets all these atributes and at the risk of further repeating myself, and available NOW?
I know that ethanol has some problems, but it is renewable and by the time that available land use becomes a problem, we will have moved on in the way we move around anyway.
Cheers,
JC
Oh Neville, Where to begin ...
to take it point by point, Brazil might be huge, but as soon as you start cutting down Rainforest for cash crops (like, say, coffee, or sugar) you have another raft of problems. Plus, if you change the rainforest for cane/ethanol, where are you going to find the machinery to tend the crops, the mills to harvest it, and how to export your surplus, and making Brazil the new Saudi Arabia, Whose nose will be out of joint then?
"There is enough coal to last the world for (only) hundreds of years." does that not alarm you? It scares the bejesus out of me. in the year 2525, we'll still have freeways and roads, they've taken up so much real estate, but no cars, no petrol, no ethanon, no coal, no electricity.
And Oil IS crushed vegetation. no doubt about it whatsoever. It did NOT come from Mars, Venus, a Comet or the Mothership.
And Australia is Not Lucky Enough etc etc ... Those Fools out there, bringing in Bass Strait Oil. Go tow them back to shore. to quote from Wikipedia..
"To date, almost four billion barrels of crude oil and around seven trillion cubic feet of gas have been produced. And our future remains bright - with Bass Strait continuing to supply vital energy to Australians for more decades to come.
And oil is found *in* the Crust, hundreds of metres, maybe thousands, below our feet, in the folds and faults where decayed plant matter hydrocarbons cannot escape, and certainly not as deep as the next layer , seven to seventy kilometres down, where things like lava 'well up' from.
Then / Than
to divert along a branch line, JC, you did this in your previous. ... you wrote "If your talking about making your own then the process is much more complicated then making ethanol."
"Then the preocess " meaning therefore, is ok, its good meaning,
"Then making Ethanol " meaning comparatively is not ok, that is erroneous.
I believe you might be using Voice recognition software. Voice recognotion software can not differentiate homophones, alas, thus the then/than problem.
So yes, you put your left foot in that hole.
Your Right Foot, you put in the " your/You're " hole, see the quotation also.
And i know this piece itself might well contain a typo, bit not a word-choice error, being 'handwritten', to coin a new meaning for it.
Grammarius invincibilus est.
Not your grammar
Mate it's not your grammar that's the problem, it's your failure to take in the whole story. So before launching into more ersatz latin, I suggest that you read the whole thing (again), you're shooting the messenger ... again.
Cheers,
JC
PS On the subject of grammar, read the part of my post you missed, then have a look at your own.
Memory from Alternative Fuel.
Quietly lets JC know my car still remembers the way to the shops.
Poor fella, gets his pees mixed with his queues
Go look at my post again, mate. There's slippery bit between what I wrote, and what you think I said ... you keep readin' what ain't there.
Cheers,
JC er that's Jay Cee ...
Green Smoke ...
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
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!
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,
JC
just the coal loader then.
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
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,
JC
You say, "These coal
You say, "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!" Ok. But a hundred or so more hectares is not much area in the scheme of things. Compare that to the huge areas of productive land that is locked up forever by National Parks, Heritage listed areas, Native Title areas and so on. As soon as a mining company wants to mine a smidgen of area the Greens come out calling it "Pristine, pristine!" I'm not worried that we could mine all the minerals leaving none for coming generations. I'm worried that leaving too much in the ground will be a temptation for China or India to come and take it just as Japan attacked Manchuria and Hitler demanded the Ruhr back. It's too important a subject to be left for asthetic or eco tourism reasons.
Productive land
Nev, a little history would tell you that virtually all the productive farming land had been settled well before the advent of any National Parks ...even in Queensland.
Really first-class fertile dirt is hard to come by, we are blessed with some of the best, and when you dump a load of coal on top, it becomes infertile for an awful long time.
Cheers,
JC
Well, today's (1 march 2012)
Well, today's (1 march 2012) announcement by Bligh goes against that. She announced $15 million to go towards a 'green corridor' from way out west to the SE corner of QLD. This is supposedly to allow flora and fauna to be protected, etc. It does cover large areas of productive and potential productive land. This will be locked away forever.
Typical of the Cape York "wild rivers" concept. Cape york is the size of Victoria. I would love to see Victoria be locked up with no further development of any sort allowed there. Sure! These decrees without referendum are made to kiss the butts of Greenies and don't cost governments a cent. Yet they give the impression of great activity. All heat but no fire.
I feel like all development, mining, etc should be banned, the key thrown away and leaving Australia to the next invaders. But I doubt we would get welfare like the original owners.
But what do you say to the
But what do you say to the Greens, etc, who are seriously proposing to cover much of the productive land on the Darling Downs with eucalyptus tree plantations? It will look good, be sustainable, but will deprive us even more of our own food production.
Katter is right...we have almost already become a Nett importer of food. My point was, and is, that too much good land that was still yet to be cleared was stopped when Labor took over.
I can remember the Ekka where huge balls of steel attached to chains were displayed. These were used to clear Brigalow country.
Frankly, I think the southern states are jealous of QLD's food producing potential if we had more dams and irrigation. Instead, the MDB gets all the money and attention. It's nuts.
The answer, my Friend is Blowin' in The Wind.
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.
Water Sprays
Kilroy, why do you think coal dumps are required to install automatic water sprays? It isn't to prevent spontaneous combustion! I'm surprised you're not a world famous tennis player.
Cheers,
JC
First mention of water sprays .
So that's how come there is no coal dust blowing on the wind. It's sprayed.
So then, if there's a water spray, why is anyone objecting to any coal dump?
Should've gone to Specsavers
As I said in my previous post, they're objecting to the doubling in size of the coal dump! If someone managed to coax cane to grow 50ft high, would you like to be downwind of the burn? Even if they invented clean-burning trash?
Just think for a moment, if some PS wallah visited you, and told you that the block of ground next to your country house was found to contain a mother lode of coal and some ridiculously wealthy bloke from the city was going to mine it, and place a one hundred hectare dump of the black stuff right in way of your view that the family back to great-granddad had enjoyed. And so sorry but all you'll get out of it is a bloody great hole in the bottom paddock and a promise that once the coal has paid out, they promise to put what's left of the topsoil back ... in about 75 years. You can't compain ... ohh no; Capt'n Bligh has passed a bill that says you can't.
Of course thge coal will be burnt to to power a few very green mini fluros, that His Rockstarness member for stuff-ups, Peter (Pink Bats) Garrett will permit you to install. 'Cause incandescent bulbs create too much carbon dioxide ... and that's bad for the planet (he can't tell you why), but Al Gore told him, so it must be true!
And while I'm on the subject of Bligh ... A little trivia ... did you know, that there's no representative from the Gold Coast on the Commonwealth Games committee?
Cheers,
JC
PS How about some enterprising farmer gets a couple of tippers loaded with coal, and dumps them in front of Anna's driveway early one morning (preferably wash day ... see if can win a couple of votes.
Back in the 50s my family
Back in the 50s my family lived in Main St Kangaroo Point. The coal dust and soot from steam trains blackened everything. No one complained much because it was how things were done. No electric trains, etc.
There are always people complaining about quarries being started near them. But the 'Iconic' lit up Kangaroo Point cliffs were, in fact, a quarry. Many buildings and walls can still be seen in the CBD today.
Mt. Cootha had a quarry up to the 70s. At Yeronga school about 10am every day we would hear a "BOOM" as more rocks were blasted. There would be less roads if quarries were too far away because of transportation costs to take the rocks to construction sites.
Imagine if the only quarries for use in Brisbane were limited to 100 km distance and the extra trucks on main roads as well.
Coal Dust?
The coal dust ... .... from steam trains blackened everything.
Queensland Rail, as i see pictures, had one coal tender for each steam engine. Additionally, there still exist today umpteen thousand coal cars, ferrying from inland to Gladstone.
If, as everyone contends, there was coal dust virtually spewing from each and every one of these rail cars and tenders,then Queensland Rail would have some system of covers on them. Surely. If only to save costs.
Clearly, otherwise the ground beside every foot of Queensland Rail track would be inches deep in coal, a fire hazard for sure, given the possibility of an ember coming from the smoke stack.
Exercise a) take a piece of coal, rub it on your hands and see what happens. What's that you say? You've never ever touched a piece of coal?? Well, you'd better line up with all the other experts.
Coal fire?
Fire hazard from coal residue ... Ah KOA, I don't think that you have ever started a coal fire either. One has to start a fire with something else to get coal to catch readilly. And yes there has been the odd fire next to railway tracks, usually started by grass-fires providing the heat necessary to get any residual coal going.
If you're that interested, see if you can find an historic photo of a railway coal dump, then visit the site and see if there's anything growing on the site. There will be very little in the way of anything that can be called pasture, or support for any food plant growth.
I cannot speak with any great knowledge about Queensland railways, but anyone who has done any commuting in Sydney, will have seen the wasteland in the big marshalling yards, produced by more that 100 years of coal-fired locomotives.
You will get very little dirt from a large lump of coal ... the grubby stains come most from small pieces and from dust ... you see it's the oil component that Nev keeps rabbiting on about that transfers to the skin or the clothes or the washing.
And yes, when I first left school, I went from "trainee engineman" to "acting fireman" in my two years working for the NSWGR ... Here endeth the geology/physics/labouring lesson,
Cheers, JC
To me, the stuff rubbing off
To me, the stuff rubbing off a lump of coal is carbon. Carbon comes in many forms. Carbon makes hard crystals called diamonds, sliding crystals called the 'lead' in lead pencils, they make 'Buckyballs' which are nano sized strong carbon 'cages' that have huge potential.
Most of all, carbon is found in every living thing and is essential for life. Proteins, enzymes and such all have carbon bases which get attached to other atoms. Amino acids and basic petroleum were first found to have carbon as their base. Without carbon being the basic building block there would be no life.
Yet Gillard and co' state that carbon is a pollutant. Again, that is not telling the truth. First it was human caused global warming; then just global warming; then just climate change (notice how Flannery wuz wrong!); then carbon pollution. But my family put up with carbon pollution in the 1950s. This was SOOT from the burning coal in steam (choo choo) trains. This no longer applies and power stations have filters catching the soot...er, carbon...before reaching the air.
No. Gillard and co' used the word pollution improperly instead of saying carbon DIOXIDE. But, she hoped most people would not notice this thimble trick use of words and we are now stuck with a carbon (dioxide) tax. The price can NOT go below $15 a tonne because the Greens made that part of the legislation. With the price on the international market being around $5 or less we are doomed to always pay too much.
I don't understand. When I
I don't understand. When I lived at Kangaroo Pt. I even had to walk about 1m alongside the trains at the 'Gabba' on my way to East Brisbane S.S. There were plenty of pieces of coal. Often, us kids would try hard to get them to burn either by friction or even by matches. It never worked.
On country drives in those days you would often see railway workers burning off grass alongside rail tracks. That was to prevent bushfires starting from burning embers coming out from underneath the boiler. These days trains are electric including the ones that transport coal to Gladstone. (No, not diesel electric; fully electric.) They would hardly cause a fire to begin.
Any person who chooses to live in Gladstone has to realise it is not the Gold or Sunshine Coast. Same for Mt.Isa. Some mothers complain their children may have too high a lead content. Well, who'da thunk?
I lived all my life alongside very congested roads while lead was in petrol. Health people warned this could give rise to elevated lead in blood. So I had a test done on myself. Normal.
Coal Dust?
So the coal does not blow away fromthe marshalling yards? not even after a hundred years or so? Nor does any ash/soot dumped from the trains.
So nothing grows in the (How many?) inches of gravel ballast and sleepers, i reckon that is just the way that NSW Rail wanted it to be. I'd also be interested to know the composition of the original soil underneath, If our initiators of rail had any sense, they would have selected a claypan, (surprisingly level and inhospitable to life) to establish a large rail yard.
I am trying to think of a way to turn this discussion into a political argument on the side of either Gillard Or Abbot, or this week's 'Likely Lads' ... Kevin and Carr ........... but I cannot.
It's an ill wind ...
Don't try to turn it into a Labour versus Libs thing mate, because as far as mining goes they are both on the same side; because like all pollies, all they can see is the dollar signs and the money they can spend on their own pet projects.
If you are all that fired (?) up about it, I'll see if I can arrange for a few tonnes of coal to be dumped on your front lawn and you can do all your own research.
Cheers,
JC
PS I don't remember mentioning anything about ballast or its depth. If you have ever driven around the old Ghan track you will see the same effect, and it hasn't any ballast.
When looking at change
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.
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
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
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
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!
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,
JC
They won't answer
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,
JC
NSW ethanol
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 ...
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,
JC
Reality Bites.
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!
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,
JC
John..."Most people are aware
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.