Jamison Report Calls for Fast-Tracking Development of Electric Vehicles in Australia
23 July 2008
A report commissioned by Australia’s National Roads and Motorists’ Association (NRMA) calls on the Australian Government to set a target of reducing oil dependence by 20% by 2020; 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050 and to do all it can to fast-track the development of the electric car in Australia, charged by renewable energy sources such as wind or solar.
The NRMA established the Jamison Group following the company’s Alternative Fuel Summit in 2006. The group, comprising David Lamb, Mark Diesendorf, John Mathews and Graeme Pearman, produced the report: A Road Map for Alternative Fuels in Australia: Ending our Dependence on Oil.
Australia has been a modest producer of crude oil, but production is now in decline. Oil production increased gradually since 1980, peaking in 2000 at 805,000 thousand barrels per day (bbl/d), according to the US Energy Information Administration. In 2003, production fell plummeted to 630,522 bbl/d. In 2006, Australia produced approximately 562,000 bbl/d of oil.
Imports, which accounted for 7% of total consumption in 2000, have rapidly increased to represent around 39% of total consumption. Under current trends, the nation will have an oil trade deficit of A$25 billion by 2015, causing enormous inflationary pressures on the economy and further damage to the environment.
Australia is 99.9% dependent on fossil fuels for private transport, and the this consumption is rising despite a move towards smaller vehicles and greater awareness of the need for energy conservation and energy efficiency. The only ‘alternative’ fuel with penetration in the Australian market is Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG).
Australia currently consumes just over 38 billion liters (10 billion gallons US) of fuel annually for road and off-road vehicles, of which 19.3 billion liters (50%) comes from gasoline, 17.0 billion from diesel (44%) and 2.3 billion liters from LPG (6%). E10 blends account for less than one percent of fuel sales (with the ethanol itself accounting for only a tenth of this, or 0.1% of total road transport fuel sales).
The Jamison report outlines a 12-step roadmap to reduce the country’s dependence on oil. The steps are:
Set the goals of reducing oil dependence in Australia by 20% by 2020; 30% by 2030; and by 50% by 2050.
Promote and develop alternative fuels, defined as fuels not derived from oil or coal. They include fuels derived from natural gas, biomass, and from electricity generated from renewable sources.
Set compulsory fuel consumption and carbon dioxide standards.
Strengthen criteria pollutant emissions standards. Australian emissions standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates lag behind the Euro 5 standards.
Set alternative fuel market mandates: 5% in 2010; 15% in 2015; and 20% in 2020. Mandates beyond 20% will not be needed, the authors conclude, as market forces will take over beyond that point.
Provide tax incentives for vehicles running on alternative fuels or propulsion systems.
Provide tax incentives for alternative fuels and infrastructure.
Wind back subsidies that reinforce oil dependence. Subsidies amounting to about A$10 billion per year support the production and use of fossil-based transport fuels in Australia.
Use the Green Car Fund to support innovative small and medium-sized components producers in Australia that move the industry towards oil independence.
State governments need to adjust their tax and tariff arrangements. This is particularly relevant for vehicle registrations, which should be adjusted so that drivers of lower fuel consumption vehicles pay lower registration fees. Feed-in tariffs need to be extended or introduced to allow renewable sources to sell electricity generated direct to the grid, thereby accelerating the swing towards renewable sources for electricity generation and moderating the greenhouse impact of electric vehicles.
Allow carbon credits to grow alternative fuel industries.
Foster urban public transport and sustainable mobility options.
The shift towards electric vehicles is likely to happen far faster and earlier than could have been imagined. By putting electric vehicles at the top of its priority list, the government in Australia could play a major role in creating a fundamental shift away from fossil fuel dependence—provided the electric power being generated is coming increasingly from renewable and low-carbon sources.
The major issue to do with electric vehicles, apart from the technology itself and innovations that are already underway, is infrastructure. Drivers of all-electric cars need to be guaranteed that there will be recharging points either at special plug-in roadside points such as in shopping centres, car parks and workplaces or at existing service stations. (electric vehicles may be designed to allow separate batteries to be charged independently, thus saving time.)
Indeed electric vehicles’ batteries could be used (when parked at home) to power domestic appliances such as air conditioners, and ultimately to provide power to the grid from excess charge built up.
Just think: if Australia’s 14 million cars were able to generate just 3 kW of excess power from their charged batteries, and feed this into the grid, they would provide power equivalent to Australia’s current generating capacity from all its power stations combined.
—The Jamison Report
Resources
The first precept of the electric vehicle infrastructure is that all power is originated from the grid. With is in mind, the following statement from “The Jamison Report” is very confusing and troubling.
Just think: if Australia’s 14 million cars were able to generate just 3 kW of excess power from their charged batteries, and feed this into the grid, they would provide power equivalent to Australia’s current generating capacity from all its power stations combined.
If the auto fleet can power the grid, doesn’t that mean that the grid can’t power the auto fleet?
As a matter of prudence, the grid should support an electric car fleet with only a small fraction of the total power capacity; typically off peak power.
This leads to the suspicion that the Australian power grid needs a major upgrade and expansion.
According to environmental doctrine, this expansion follows the standard sustainable power production regime: solar, wind, geothermal, wave, etc.
But what I see missing in the sustainable game plan is a dependable load following generator to even out renewable power production.
This is a function that a nuclear power capability could fulfill nicely.
For Australia, the ideal reactor would be small, operationally fail safe, inexpensive, easily deployable, and not requiring much nuclear infrastructure; a third world reactor; a reactor that can closely mimic the gas fired power stations that provide the usual peak power and load following function on a power grid.
However, I am not aware of this reactor type certified anywhere in the world.
Until it becomes more generally accepted that this capability is essential for sustainability, then natural gas will remain the only peak power and load following option.
Posted by: Axil | 23 July 2008 at 10:46 AM
I don't understand what they are saying about taking unused battery charge at night and discharging it into the grid? How is one to get to work the next day on a discharged battery?
Posted by: Laurence | 23 July 2008 at 10:52 AM
@Laurence
It is hard to precisely determine what they are thinking. The best that I can come up with is that they assume a mix of hybrid and all electric autos. The V2G power comes from the hybrids.
Posted by: Axil | 23 July 2008 at 12:16 PM
Axil,
Again spruking your nuclear nightmare.
" but what I see missing..."
"Give it a break!" You just named the Geothermal, wind solar and gas power (you forgot Hydro) generation technologies that ARE available, that ARE renewable that ARE right there in your own post but you cant ? wont? refuse? to see.
These are the new clean business and people friendly technologies that in the opinion of many are very capable of providing the same base following electricity that you insist dont exist.
Posted by: arnold | 23 July 2008 at 02:04 PM
Laurence,
Another way of looking at that is to see just how inefficient the present system of having non load following or traditional coal and nuclear non variable power generation.
I would suggest you consider that (from analyzing the statement) a sufficient number of V2G participents could potentially 1/2 required power generation.
Mind boggling to think that so much waste exists 'out there' while people are being panicked with 'crashing economies' and 'living in the dark'
The reality is that increasingly there is going to be money in efficiency not in installing or running more capacity. There will be money in clean technology not pollution.
This will be a threat to some who have investments in the dirty old and rustbelt industries but for the rest there will be be opportunities and a path forward.
Posted by: arnold | 23 July 2008 at 02:20 PM
With the Outback, Australia has humongous solar-thermal electric potential. If enough solar thermal electric plants were built, some heat could be stored in salts to be used at night. The steep rate in the fall of oil production in Australia after its peak raises disturbing questions such as, "Could such a steep decline in oil production occur on a worldwide basis?" It appears that a full-court press to develop BEV's and PHEV's combined with multiple renewable technologies, e.g., solar-thermal, photovoltaic, wind, bio-methane, algae, geothermal, wave, hydro, etc., needs to be done on a worldwide basis and it needs to be done now.
Posted by: Brandon D. Hunt | 23 July 2008 at 04:13 PM
In the near future solar will become cheaper than wind or even coal or nuclear, with or without government subsidy. At this point this will be preferred for all new capacity. Australia is blessed with an abundance of sun and they will quickly move to this preferred source of generation. Currently it is cheaper for utilities to buy new capacity through energy conservation (efficiecy) than to build new coal. Many already are realizing this and doing it. Energy storage using solar thermal will actually drive down the cost per kW and will help in the adoption of solar on a large scale. This will make the use of BEV and PHEV preferred.
Posted by: sac | 23 July 2008 at 04:42 PM
In the near future solar will become cheaper than wind or even coal or nuclear, with or without government subsidy. At this point this will be preferred for all new capacity. Australia is blessed with an abundance of sun and they will quickly move to this preferred source of generation. Currently it is cheaper for utilities to buy new capacity through energy conservation (efficiecy) than to build new coal. Many already are realizing this and doing it. Energy storage using solar thermal will actually drive down the cost per kW and will help in the adoption of solar on a large scale. This will make the use of BEV and PHEV preferred.
Posted by: sac | 23 July 2008 at 04:42 PM
No full electric cars should be built even if the auxillary engine generator only has a two Kw large model airplane engine.
Solar cells will always be too expensive for many applications.
Thermal solar electricity still requires big areas and large devices.
Wind energy is also dispersed over very large areas and requires a lot more steel per unit output than nuclear.
If you sell uranium to other countries you better use it yourself, so Austrailia ought to put in a few CANDU reactors.
Electricity can be shipped long distances with high efficiency with Direct Current transmission and it is possible to use buried cables for very long distances. Modern technology allows now for multiple taps on a DC transmission line.
Nuclear electricity, not the hydrogen economy, is the cheapest efficient way of supplying energy to homes and factories... ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 26 July 2008 at 08:55 PM