Do we trust a GM petrol-head when they tell us EVs will take decades?

On one level, yes. Realistically the switch to EVs (electric vehicles), or whatever we switch to, won't happen overnight. Logic tells us that we will continue to consume petrol - and diesel - for years and years to come. But it will begin to fall. The shift will happen not because we are running out of oil - we've been 'running out' since we started getting it out of the ground - but because the price will rise. And rise it will, as world demand continues to grow in tandem with the increasing difficulty of extracting oil from deeper, dirtier and more difficult to reach reserves. Consumers will drive the switch to EVs (and other alternatives) when they see that the non-petrol vehicle is available at a comparable initial buy price, with similar utility. Simple, so we almost agree. "Decades" may be an exaggeration, but 2 decades of demand in a lop-sided bell-curve is conceivable with a sudden drop off then long tail into the future.

However what this statement really tells us is that GM's local arm is not serious about making the switch anytime soon. Indeed, they may be accused here of dampening down the prospect: Plug-in electric vehicles are decades away from replacing conventional cars in the garages of average Australians, according to Holden. It doesn't sound like a statement of commitment to change, does it? Even though Holden's is committed to the GM Volt it doesn't sound like they expect to sell many. Not soon, anyway.

So who is talking EVs down? None other than Holden's energy and environment director, Richard Marshall. Well he should know, eh? Sitting as we do on a mountain of coal, in a country with an avowed commitment to digging that coal out, generating electricity and burying the carbon somewhere deep, of course we wouldn't actually be interested in switching to EVs. Would we? Hmmm. We'd rather pump up our remaining, dwindling oil and gas reserves (OK, we do have lots of gas) and keep our cars running as they should - on petrol or diesel. Why talk up EVs when we can have what we have now, in spades? Oh yeah, but we'll have to import more oil just to keep up with current demand, let alone what we want in the future. Of course continuing to maintain the oil industry is best for the country. Why even think about EVs or other alternatives?

But I'm being a bit difficult, for Holden's Energy and Environment guy has other plans, too: "We need to do other things; we can't sit around and wait for electric vehicles to become cheaper," he said. "We need a multi-path approach." Can't argue against that, although EVs would seem high on that list. What Mr Marshall really wants to sell is the current fleet of cars (big, hungry Commodores) with an ethanol mix in the tank: Marshall said ethanol was an attractive option because fuel sources were widely available in Australia, it was affordable and it offered a "whole of life" reduction in CO2 of up to 94 per cent, depending on the fuel source.

Now that 94% "whole of life" reduction in CO2 is interesting. I wonder how that comes about? The GM Holden line of thought is that it is dependent upon source, and a few possibilities are provided: "It's a good cash crop which could provide more jobs and at the same time help to rejuvenate the soil and reduce carbon dioxide," he said. Sugar cane was also a ready source. "There's a good health argument to say that we'd be better off putting sugar in our cars than putting it in food," he said. Well that helps, doesn't it?

Maybe, maybe not. We do need to do something about human dietary sugar abuse, yes; and farmers will appreciate both a good revenue stream and improved soil. But how exactly does increased ethanol production and consumption reduce either the cost of fuel, or our overall atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions? If all we did was plant trees, granted we would be helping the environment by sequestering CO2 and lowering the water table, amongst other good things. But if we are planting trees only to harvest them in 5 or 10 years all we are doing is providing a small hope for the future, not a present solution. Ah, but that's where we make do with our excess sugar cane! Which is all very well but ethanol doesn't just spring forth from these plants and make its merry way to the gas pumps without some processing. Indeed by the time we have added the energy expenditure involved in ploughing and planting the crop (be it sugar cane or melaleucas), watering it, feeding it, processing it and then piping or trucking the ethanol to the storage areas where it can be mixed with petrol and then (again) piped or trucked to the gas pumps.. well we are probably behind in the carbon emission game, not ahead. And sugar cane is not the best way to make ethanol anyway, even if it did make sense.

All that we get out of ethanol, seriously, is a way to bolster the status quo, to fend off the inevitable. It would give GM Holden (and other local Aussie car makers) some breathing space in which they could continue to build the cars they build today without having to sink more money into new drivetrains and overall designs. What is not mentioned is that the taxpayer will again have to fund the inefficiencies inherent in this approach and continue to shore up these dinosaurian car makers. What will actually happen is that other car makers will take the initiative, jump into EV production, get the cars to market with leasing plans and innovative plug-and-play battery solutions that will allow consumers to make a choice. GM Holden is not willing to be the innovator, they don't want to lead, or to take a risk - they want someone else to do it. Instead they want to stick with the past, squeezing out the last possible drop of profit from their tired old ideas. If they are right and ethanol proves to be 94% more amazing than anyone ever thought, great, all power to them. But if they are wrong then they will effectively be handing the Aussie car market to the innovators. So nothing has really changed, has it?

Airlines - just 2% of the carbon emission problem? #airlines #greenhouse

There's a great article here in the EthicalCorp magazine that touches upon much of what is wrong with the airline industry and how it shapes up to solve some of the issues, especially the carbon-waste problem. However there is much more under the surface that needs to be thought through too. It's a bit like the car industry, in that just one variable - fuel use - gets the focus. So we tend to get bogged down in semantics about fuel efficiency per seat and forget about the bigger picture.

As with road traffic, air traffic demands that a vehicle is built from a diverse set of raw materials; that substantial (often public) infrastructure is laid on for these vehicles and that whole sub-industries are developed in support of designing, researching, testing, maintaining and operating these vehicles. There are specialist mechanics, training institutes, designers and builders. There are airports and terminals, hangars and hardstanding. It's an awful lot of concrete, aluminium and steel, much of it brought to site by carbon fuels and smelted by carbon-emitting energy... so when you add up the consequential emissions they are far, far greater than the simple fuel emission. (Not forgetting also that aircraft disperse much of their fuel-based carbon output at altitude, not just at ground level, and spread it around unlike any other form of transport.)

But as is the case for road transport we choose to look only at the variable - our fuel load. Now this clearly is a better bet for the airlines than it is for the car makers - airlines at least want to maximise operating profit and are under constant pressure to maximise passenger and freight loadings. Unlike a private car user, no airline wants to fly empty airliners around just for fun. And it is important to minimise fuel use, anyway. But we never seem to want to address the remainder - the infrastructure. We turn a blind eye to it because in our hearts and minds we want big, bustling airports, we like to travel, and we like new planes better than the old ones. Overall, we like to get somewhere - anywhere - quicker rather than slower. And planes fit the bill.

Or do they? If carbon emissions truly matter, both as a contribution to climate change and to acidification of our oceans, perhaps we need to question everything - from aviation to fast trains, from private cars to bicycles - and be prepared to make some really big changes. Until we get serious about it we are just playing around the edges.

Porky GM Commodore admits fat problem

Yes, well, we all knew it. They have a weight problem at GM. They make fat cars. So rather than get creative, they are doing things they shoulda/coulda done 10 or 15 years ago!

Holden is looking at removing the spare tyre from the Commodore and instead fitting controversial run-flat tyres as part of a broader plan to improve fuel efficiency by more than 20 per cent and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Oh please. And the proposed use of aluminium will reduce carbon emissions, too, eh? Frankly we need to stop reporting this rubblish. The real story lies with smaller, lower-footprint cars, not sustaining the unsustainable beasts.

Fuel efficiency 'no better than 1960s'

Well yes and no. Car engines are more efficient, but people keep buying the wrong cars! Let me put it few other ways. Rather than buy smaller, lighter cars, wealthier car-buyers these days tend to buy bigger, heavier cars. So any gain in engine efficiency is lost in weight gained. They (the modern affluent consumers) also tend to buy 4WDs when they don't 'need' them, adding further weight and complexity plus transmission losses. When they want a 'faster' or more powerful car they tend to go up in cylinder numbers or sheer capacity, neither or which improves fuel efficiency. Sigh. So the numbers get all skewed.

Which renders this article 'predictable' but - alas - it needs to be said nonetheless: While engine efficiency has increased since 1963, car size and extra features - air-conditioning, power steering and windows, safety and entertainment systems - mean petrol consumption per 100 kilometres has not budged. Freeways had also reduced fuel efficiency, Dr Mees said. "If you drive at 110kmh you use more fuel than if you drive at 70kmh."