I think it is covered by the international treaty re air travel ( IATA?) which forbids tax in any country. This treaty has been in place for something like 40 years.
The Convention on International Civil Aviation, otherwise known as the Chicago Convention. However, the convention has been revised seven times since it was signed in 1944, so it is by no means set in stone.
|
Airlines have to pay landing fees at each airport, so landing for "cheap" fuel would presumably not be economic.
The emissions from one Jumbo jet flight from the UK to Australia equals the emissions from all Formula 1 qualification and racing sessions over two seasons (source Top Gear magazine).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>>The emissions from one Jumbo jet flight from the UK to Australia equals the emissions from all Formula 1 qualification and racing sessions over two seasons (source Top Gear magazine).
er... what about all the plane trips the teams make to the venues - including Australia? Still a flea bite I suppose.
I find it interesting that we are just about at Peak Oil, yet airports are forecasting big expansions over the next 20 years. It just doesn't add up - falling oil production + exponential growth in air travel = what? Will liquid petroleum products be 'rationed' for other uses to conserve fuel for air travel? You can't run aeroplanes on batteries. What scale of bio-fuel production would be needed and how does turning land over to fuel production square with feeding growing populations?
It seems fairly clear that there will be a relatively short period in history when the technology and resources coincided and enabled the ludricous amount of travel we now routinely indulge in. We should be working out where we would like to end up, and how we are going to get there, not just allowing 'the market' to take us where it will. If we leave it to the markets, does it become a question of which happens first - ecological disaster or running out of fossil fuel?
The market is very bad at managing resources - as long as oil is cheap to extract, the market says it is worth a few pennies a bucketful, notwithstanding it is a finite and arguably priceless resource. And we actually have laws to make sure that we set up competitive markets to achieve this. Madness?
I can't see how we can avoid the curtailment of mass air travel as oil production declines from now on - what have I missed (it's too late to think)?
|
>>as oil production declines from now on>>
Oil reserves are actually higher than governments would have you believe - the problem is that it will get harder and harder for the oil companies to access them because of location, terrain etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Oil reserves are actually higher than governments would have you believe - the problem is that it will get harder and harder for the oil companies to access them because of location, terrain etc.
From what I've read, it's not just a matter of the newer reserves being slower or more expensive to get at, but also that that many of them may offer rather slow extraction rates. So there may be lots of reserves, but if the wells can't be pumped fast enough to meet demand, there'll be shortfalls.
|
>>From what I've read, it's not just a matter of the newer reserves being slower or more expensive to get at, but also that that many of them may offer rather slow extraction rates.
Exactly so - 'Peak Oil' is the jargon for the highest production rate, which some people think we have already reached or passed. If this is indeed the case, oil consumption will have to reduce, sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
|
"what have I missed"?
What everyone misses. Solar power (all costs including capital) is halving in cost every ten years. By 2030 it will be cheaper than oil and gas at their 2000 prices (and they certainly seem higher now). At that point, only a madman would heat or generate electricity any other way (where electricity can be used, that is). At the same rate, by about 2050, it will be cheap enough to overcome the inefficiencies in hydrogen generation from water, at which point hydrogen will be cheaper than oil or natural gas. Then we'll end up with a true hydrogen economy.
Nothig else is going to do it. Economic pressures will always win. While oil's cheap, people will use it. When electricity becomes cheaper, people will use it (where it CAN be used). When hydrogen becomes cheaper, it'll become the fuel of choice.
So, I'm sorry to say, given the bias against markets on this forum, that the markets WILL win.
V
|
|
For my children's sake, I hope you're right Vin. There's going to be an awful lot of demand for energy - it has only taken 300m Northern Europeans, a similar number of North Americans and a few other developed countries here and there to get us to where we are. When similar levels of demand are reached in India and China with their large populations, we will definitely need a few new ideas. And there will be a few problems to solve as well - as with hydro, doesn't solar power have to be used pretty much as it's generated?
|
"as with hydro, doesn't solar power have to be used pretty much as it's generated?"
Yes, at least until it becomes efficient enough to be used for hydrogen generation. Until then, you'll end up with a new industry for places like Mali, Algeria, Saudi (again!) etc. A belt of solar collectors might arise. The sun's always above the horizon somewhere. At current efficiencies, panels totalling 300 miles x 300 miles could provide all the power used by humans, they just aren't economical at the moment. Sounds huge, but take a look at the scale of the Sahara on a map - the above area is under 3% of the Sahara's area.
And once it becomes efficient, you'll end up with solar tiles that pay back quickly enough to be worthwhile. Think how much less CO2 the UK would produce if no electricity generation was required even just during daylight hours (and on a micro level you can store some electricity, btw).
As I say, once it becomes economically sane, you won't be able to stop it.
V
|
localised generation (such as solar power) has a further advantage in that it removes the power losses involved in punping leccy around through the national grid. I dunno what the power losses would be with pumnping leccy frim the Sahara, but if Wikpedia is right to cite am 11% loss betwen the north and south of England (se en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_%28UK%29 ), then losses from the Sahara could be much higher.
That's also one potential problem with new oil reserves: the energy inputs required to extract and transport the oil may be a lot higher than at present,
|
There are sufficient oil reserves for over 100 years+ even at currently usage forecast which includes expotential growth by China and India. The trouble is these reserves are in places that are either difficult politically or geographically or in most cases both. For example all the ex-USSR states with oil reserves are building long long pipelines but any pipeline is vulnerable at any point along its length.
I believe the way forward is technological change.
100 years ago they were worried that the increase in the use of horses in London would lead to horse dung at head high levels in the street.
My personal guess would be some step change in nuclear energy allied to a step change in battery technology which will mean electric cars within 20 years.
|
There are sufficient oil reserves for over 100 years+ even at currently usage forecast which includes expotential growth by China and India.
Depends who you listen to! Some experts allege a widespread problem of reserves being overstated for various reasons
The trouble is these reserves are in places that are either difficult politically or geographically or in most cases both. For example all the ex-USSR states with oil reserves are building long long pipelines but any pipeline is vulnerable at any point along its length.
It's not just the pipelines, it's also the rates at which oil can be extracted. It's all very well having 100 years worth of reserves, but so hepful if they can't be extracted in that 100 years
|
|
i mean "but NOT so hepful if they can't be extracted in that 100 years"
|
I agree that overstatement/understatement of oil reserves is a political issues but the bottom line is there is enough oil in Saudi Arabia alone to keep the world going for 30 years+.
I still have the Economist front page (framed in my toilet) that predicted oil prices would fall to US$5 a barrel and stay there forever and would only be produced by Saudi until their reserves ran out because marginal cost of production there is under US$1.
I remember not so long ago when crude was under US$12 and everyone including me was getting fired.
I have never heard this one about extraction difficulties before. If anything the opposite, extraction technology is improving all the time. Abandoned North Sea oil fields have been re-opened due to these technique improvements. The thing to be at the moment is a reservoir engineer. This is a specific discipline who'se sole job is to maximise reserve recovery rates. With crude at US$78 many fields which would have been shut down as uneconomic are still being pumped but it gets harder and harder to extract the dregs which is where the reservoir engineers skills come in and why there is a shortage of them due to extra demand for their skills. I have heard of rates of US$1,000+ a day being offered. Maybe this is where this comes from.
|
I have never heard this one about extraction difficulties before.
Where I heard it was in connection with oil that was mixed up shale or sand (can'r remember the techical term for that sort of deposit). The author said were some large oil fields in that condition which were already being counted as reserves, although extraction looked uneconomic. Sorry, can't recall the source.
If anything the opposite, extraction technology is improving all the time. Abandoned North Sea oil fields have been re-opened due to these technique improvements.
I thought that those improvements, and anticipated future improvements, had already been factored into the assessments of usable rerserves?
|
'oil that was mixed up shale or sand'
Its called heavy oil and its filthy stuff. There is actually more oil in Canada than in Saudi Arabia but its mostly heavy oil.
Basically extracting it is very difficult and expensive and you end up with a small amount of low quality oil and a large amount of radioactive muck which is very expensive to process and dispose of.
Its not financially viable under about US$25 a barrel and traditionally the big boys wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. At US$78 its a gold mine!
The leader in this technology is a Canadian (naturally) company called Canadian Natural Resources Limited.
'anticipated future improvements'?
10 years ago could you have anticipated the price and power of the computer you are using today? Reservoir engineering is driven by analysing data from the reservoir using highly sophisticated equipment. As the technology improves so does the recovery rate.
|
'anticipated future improvements'? 10 years ago could you have anticipated the price and power of the computer you are using today?
Yes to the second bit! Moore's law precited that remarkably accurately.
|
|
OK you chemists. If the solution to our future energy problems lies in extracting (splitting) hydrogen from water (H2O), what is the ratio of the energy you get from burning a unit weight of hydrogen (choose your own unit) to the energy that is needed to split that weight of hydrogen from water? Note: If the answer is not greater than unity the process is lossy.
|
One site - tinyurl.com/nmhpe - says (no details on volumes):
it requires 249.688 Btu of energy (from electricity) to break water by electrocal fission into the gases hydrogen and oxygen. 302.375 Btu of energy (heat or electricity) will be released when the gases, hydrogen and oxygen, combine.
V
|
Just reread that and it must be twaddle. Presumably the figures should be reversed.
V
|
|
And when the oxygen and hydrogen recombine they produce water. Hmmm. Not an alchemist in there somewhere, is there?.
|
thommo said... The current big target for the tree huggers is aviation fuel ...
>>
vin said... twaddle. Presumably the figures should be reversed. ..
>>
this thread is becoming more like the one (nearly two years ago) where vin said:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=24409&...f
Chinese Fuel Consumption - Vin {P} Thu 5 Aug 04 04:15
" Let's assume oil is selling for $20 per barrel, and that there are X years of reserves. ....
...... .... Well, at current consumption, estimates go as high as 5,000 years of reserves.
Perhaps we should flag this thread for a revisit in five years.
and vin also said:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=24409&...e
": ...New Orleans will have joined their streets together .. "
and i said
Chinese Fuel Consumption - Dalglish Thu 5 Aug 04 09:37
" .... we are all doomed, dooomed, doooomed - not because of shortage of oil, but because of global warming having far greater impact and at an earlier date than forecast. yes, let us revisit this thread in five years. ..."
the price of crude oil has quadrupled in those two years, and the streets of neworleans did join together last year, and there is a drought in south-east england, ...
but i presume vin stands by his view that oil reserves will last 5,000 years.
|
Dalglish (amongst other confusing stuff) said: "but i presume vin stands by his view that oil reserves will last 5,000 years."
In what way will anything related to fuel prices affect oil reserves?
By all means quote me out of context - e.g. the quote about New Orleans was unrelated in any way whatsoever to do with flooding - but at least get your argument straight.
V
|
Forgive me - error in my editing:
In what way will anything related to fuel prices affect oil reserves? Apart, of course, that higher prices will lead people to use less, so reserves expressed in years of usage will increase.
V
|
Ah, I've just reread the entire thread Dalglish referred to.
He didn't make a single additional constructive comment after I asked him to address the main issue. He then (and he clearly is obsessed with this) quoted my reference to Mark Twain again as if it had some kind of relevance to the floods in New Orleans.
Clearly, Dalglish, this is your style of "debate" and I'm sorry to tell you I'm not going to get taken in by it. Make your unscientific axe-grinding hysterical doom mongering and your out of context quotations on your own.
Troll away, my dear thing, troll away.
V
|
...what is the ratio of the energy you get from burning a unit weight of hydrogen (choose your own unit) to the energy that is needed to split that weight of hydrogen from water?
I don't have the figures to hand, but AFAIK, more energy is consumed in extracting hydrogen than burning it. But the biggest barrier to using it in aircraft (if that's what we have in mind) is the weight of the insulated tank needed to carry the hydrogen - which makes it impractical for aircraft.
As for taxing aviation fuel, there's a practical reason not to - unless all markets had the same tax rules, carriers would do what trucks do and refuel in tax-free countries. As a typical short-haul aircraft (737 or A320) only fuels on every second or third flight it makes, that could add up to a lot of lost revenue in those countries with aviation fuel tax.
(Of course the real fear is that the powers that be not only work out a method of taxing aviation fuel across the board, but that they go one step further and apply the same method to motor fuels - using the highest rate in force across the EU, no doubt!)
|
|
- as with hydro, doesn't solar power have to be used pretty much as it's generated?
Here's one solution to this type of problem. Think of it as a VERY large battery:
www.electricmountain.co.uk/dinorwig.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
