Saturday, Jul 29, 2006 at 21:46
Let's pretend our gracious leader removed the fuel excise overnight.
The price of fuel 'may' then drop by 38 c/l which is the excise. It may drop a little more as there would be less GST due too.
Since what, less than a year, we have seen the price rise from $1 litre to $1.40 litre, so we could all settle down and get fuel under that magical $1 litre barrier.
But how long do you think it will take for the world oil price to rise by whatever it has done over the last 6 months and suddenly we are all paying $1.40l again??
It's a controversial opinion, but I'm on the side of the peak oil proponents.
I took time to attend a
forum yesterday morning, put on by BP where the president of the Sustainable Transport Coalition of WA " target="EOF" class="lbg">www.stcwa.org.au/ made many points in favour of Peak oil - in fact he called it Twin Peaks for reasons he explained well and I don't feel like going into here. However the CEO of the Kwinana refinery reckoned he could put ten knowledgeable people in a room and get ten different views on peak oil.
For those who say we have hundreds of years of supply left. Maybe we do - but who is checking on the claims of the Saudi's that they are floating on the stuff? No one. We just believe them.
How come they are pulling drilling rigs from all over the world to the middle east? Are they trying to increase capacity and stick more holes in the known reserves, or are they struggling to supply more than they are now and seeking new reserves? Who knows, there isn't any independent auditing.
Yes we do find more oil - one of the big recent finds had the capacity to supply world demand for ..... two weeks. Yippeee.
Bush, Howard and most of us get sucked in to the traditional economics argument - that price will control demand, and the market will sort things out. Economics also admit that if the price of eggs go high enough, roosters will start laying.
The market will not fix this folks.
One of the things we are all missing whilst we bicker about whether fuel is wonderful at $1 litre or disastrous at $1.40 litre is that we must look at ways of reducing, lets say that again REDUCING, our energy demands. Renewables cannot supplant fossil fuels at the current demand, not come close. I love the stuff, but without reduction in demand it ain't gunna cut it.
Back to the thread - why is rapeseed, AKA Canola an expensive feedstock for BioD? Have you seen the stuff? Tiny little seeds. Lots of hectares of farming, lots of harvesting, lots of crushing, filtering, degumming and that's before you can put it into a BioD plant. You can buy good de gummed Canola for $1 litre on farm for 200 litre drums. Cheaper if I buy a 67,000 litre tanker full, but not too much cheaper. Or you can, if you're lucky pop down to a supermarket and buy dumped Belgium canola for $1 litre. Add on the 38c/l excise plus a bit for methanol, NaOH, and the investment in plant, and it's no wonder it's the same price as fossil fuel.
Flame away, but until the price of fuel rises more, perhaps double what it is now, we are not going to see the substantial changes in behaviours necessary to control demand enough to make a difference, AND make alternatives more financially viable.
Tim
AnswerID:
186025
Follow Up By: Barnesy - Saturday, Jul 29, 2006 at 23:54
Saturday, Jul 29, 2006 at 23:54
Very well said Tim. The only long term solution i see for Oz (apart from reducing our usage) is getting solar up and going as quickly as we can. Not only would this reduce our reliance on fossils but would also make what fossil fuel we can get last longer.
We need politicians with vision and long term plans for Oz. What do you think about the current status where the Libs refuse to raise the MRET (mandatory renewable energy target)?
FollowupID:
443025
Follow Up By: Tim HJ61 (WA) - Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 00:17
Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 00:17
Thanks Barnesy,
I don't know too much about this, but I have some memory of hearing we were doing well in regard to the previous target. I guess it's always easy to jump over a twig.
I get so disappointed at lost opportunity with a lot of this stuff. We've not taken the lead in many things we could have, there doesn't appear to be any appreciation from the Government of the importance of these issues. So many things are being overlooked. Not signing Kyoto, falling way behind our greenhouse 'targets' which should be called responsibilities - just being one.
And didn't the PM say we shouldn't be having any water restrictions - oh pleeeez - where is this man living??
This topic is not really complying with the 4WD and
camping guidelines, but these are issues that impact on our ability to DO the 4WD and
camping things we love. Environmental degradation affects us all.
Regarding politicians: I'm the National Vice President of a party that has been working it's butt off for nearly 30 years trying to achieve environmental, social, accountability and economic goals, with heaps of long term policies extending well past an election cycle. For my part it's all voluntary and self funded, as is the cost of my flight to
Sydney from
Perth next weekend for two days of meetings - yippee!
It's easy to bag the politicians or the political processes, but two things are a reality:
That the majority of Australians chose to have one party control both houses of parliament, so those who did should either shut up when diabolical things happen, or get involved and change things and 2
That unless minor parties are supported by #1 votes in the next election, then this will continue for another election cycle.
Your choice
Australia.
Tim
FollowupID:
443028
Follow Up By: Member - Bware (Tweed Valley) - Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 00:44
Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 00:44
Nice one Tim and Barnsey,
It's amazing how many people don't understand the 'both house' thing, so we have to live with it. The next election scares me because I am concerned about how many people will do the same thing again. ie ' We're going to vote Liberal in both houses because our parents did and we don't know any different'
FollowupID:
443030
Follow Up By: Dave Thomson - Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 16:32
Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 16:32
Hi Tim and all who answered your input as usual has been brilliant, Tim just to get your reply straight are you saying that if fuel dropped back to $1.00 a Lt bio would still be $1.40 ?
regards,
Dave
FollowupID:
443080
Follow Up By: Member - Andrew W (SA) - Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 18:27
Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 18:27
I can't speak for Tim, but I would suggest that if fuel dropped back to $1/l bio would be $0.97/l.
It is mostly NOT made from Canola oil ... it is made from other things include Waste Vegetable Oil and animal fats costing quite a bit less than $1 per litre.
Just what those costs are, I am not sure, and just what volumes the manufacturers want to amortise the costs of the plant over I am not sure either.
Ciao for now
Andrew.
FollowupID:
443109
Follow Up By: Tim HJ61 (WA) - Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 20:24
Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 20:24
Thanks for the positive comment Dave - I'd actually expected a bunch of flames!!
Andrew is correct, although I wasn't being that accurate. BioD is subject to the same fuel excise as fossil fuel; so whichever fuel it is, petrol, diesel etc., in theory would drop by 38 - 40 c/l if the excise was removed.
My point really was that whilst people say the government must DO something, I am saying that the fuel excise and GST are the only extras the govt adds, and the excise doesn't change as the base price of fuel changes - which seems to be the urban myth.
I'm also saying that IMHO, the price of fuel will continue to rise and as an example if a year the price might be 40 c/l higher than it is now - AND if the fuel excise was to go, then we'd be back in the same boat. Again IMHO, the fuel excise is the least of our worries and people should start looking at reducing their use of fuels if they really want to reduce their costs.
Or stop complaining.
Tim
FollowupID:
443151
Follow Up By: Tim HJ61 (WA) - Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 20:46
Sunday, Jul 30, 2006 at 20:46
Andrew,
Australian Renewable Fuels that have built a BioD plant in SA and are building one near
Bunbury WA, are using tallow - I'm guessing new tallow from the abattoirs.
They were going to price it at a premium to fossil fuel as it is a better fuel, but have been stymied somewhat by Gull selling 80/20 at a discount to fossil diesel.
Tim
FollowupID:
443156
Follow Up By: Member - Andrew W (SA) - Monday, Jul 31, 2006 at 00:00
Monday, Jul 31, 2006 at 00:00
From what I recall from reading their material they have pre-sold a lot of their production if not all of it - 45 million litres per annum to Dermody.
Dermody are one of the big distributors (BP Agent) in SA and the NT and the price was set against some industry benchmark surprise surprise.
So, what Gull are selling it at is of no concern anymore to ARF, although it may well be to Dermody.
It will be interesting to see the effects once the Largs Plant finally gets into production ...
Similarly, SAFF's new plant whilst smaller should be in production soon. With a bit of luck there will be real competition and perhaps choice.
Ciao for now
Andrew.
FollowupID:
443203