If algae biofuel is so good how come it hasn't taken off like mobile phones or DVDs? Clearly a workable replacement for some imported oil is compressed or liquefied natural gas (CNG, LNG) in trucks and buses. Perhaps we should work out how much gas we have for various purposes -transport fuel, space heat, process heat, ammonia production, peaking power plant, etc - then see if we can really afford to export so much.

Australia's defacto fuel policy seems to be to sell coal and gas and buy oil. Someone needs to re-assess this in terms of petajoules in and out as well as Australia's role in global emissions. Until algae fuel is shown to be reliable and net high yielding we may be barking up the wrong tree.

I wonder if coal to diesel can match 45 cents a litre retail for algae sourced fuel?
If it could, one would think some savy investor would be making this alternative fuel and reaping massive windfall profits.
Where can I buy some of this coal sourced fuel, Shadow Minister?
The fossil fuel industry is finding it more expensive to recover oil, even though it still only costs a dollar a barrel to recover, in parts of the middle East.
Moreover, in spite of increasing recovery costs, it is raking in over four trillion annually.
And Algae threatens than cash flow and all who benefit from it; including some politicians?
Many deep ocean prospects would become entirely uneconomic, when confronted by algae sourced fuel, retailing at just 45 cents a litre.
I mean, as Shadow Minister has pointed out, refinery costs are cheaper in places like Singapore, yet the cost is still significant given the energy component inherent in refining.
Algae needs no such processing, hence the lower cost.
Extracting the ready to use oil is as simple as sun drying and crushing the product. The only real costs are infrastructure outlays.
Of course the fossil fuel industry is threatened by algae production, and their mouthpieces are busy bagging the industry, in the forlorn hope, they can dissuade the decision makers, and or investors, from getting behind this fledgling industry?
When are we going to get some leaders, who are finally able to put Australia and Australian interests ahead of extremely powerful multi-national petroleum companies?
Rhrosty.

Let me break this into three separate questions

1) Should Australia be researching algal fuels?

As it happens the CSIRO is conducting research into algal biofuels but it's poorly funded.

See: http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Energy/Powering-Transport/biofuel/Algal-biofuel.aspx

Given Australia's "photon density" it's really a no-brainer. The fact that the country is not funding this research adequately illustrates, yet again, the sterility of political debate in this country.

But does anyone seriously expect this type of imagination from Tony Gillard, errh I mean Julia Abbott, errh, well you know what I mean?

2) Are we ready to proceed to the pilot plant stage?

According to a scientist acquaintance of mine at CSRO, yes. But that's the opinion of an enthusiast. I don't know. It's something that could be considered.

3) Are we ready to take the plunge and commit ourselves to full scale biofuel production?

I think that's premature. I think at most we're ready for some pilot projects.

Shadow Minister

I definitely would not use South Africa's oil from coal plants as a model. They were a desperation measure made viable only by all manner of hidden subsidies. If it weren't for fear of an oil boycott they would never have been built.

LNG could be a better option.

Taswegian asks

>>If algae biofuel is so good how come it hasn't taken off like mobile phones or DVDs?>>

Mobile phones and DVD's took off after many billions of GOVERNMENT MONEY had been spent on research to establish the basic science that made them possible. This is not the sort of thing the Ayn Randians like to hear but it is what it is.

Mobile phones, for example, would have been impossible without the development of microcircuits. Much of the fundamental research into microcircuits was funded by the Pentagon because they wanted to cram more electronics into aircraft.

Once the basic research had been done commercial enterprises developed and adapted it.

Stevenlmyer,

>"Given Australia's "photon density" it's really a no-brainer. The fact that the country is not funding this research adequately illustrates, yet again, the sterility of political debate in this country. "

I disagree with your argument. If the basis for funding is that a scientist and some followers believe what they are doing, then there'd be no end of waste on crazy schemes (e.g.: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm )

How much we allocate to research on fossil fuel replacements should be based on expected costs and benefits taking into account risk of success. So far nothing has been presented that suggests an objective, impartial cost/benefit analysis has been done to justify more funding for algae fuel research.

We've spent >30 years throwing money at renewable energy and being continually misled about the prospects. We need to be cautious about continuing down this route.

Julian I'd be very careful quoting Obama funding as a positive. Just like his billion given to mates in the now defunct solar industry, any funding is likely to be political rather than scientific.

From what I have read, Algae could fuel Oz, but why bother. We have more than enough oil to fuel Oz for a century in central Queensland. All we have to do is harvest it.

It was only dirty politics that stopped the Rundle shale oil project, after it had been proven economic many years back.

The really stupid thing is letting the oil companies get away with closing the refineries. A simple requirement that to sell oil in Oz a company must refine a percentage say 60% in Oz would fix that.

This would not only trim the wings of Coles & Woolworths, before they own everything, but ensure our supplies.

To say we are badly governed is putting it mildly.

Julian,

Algae as a form of renewable energy may have its merits but like other forms such as wind, solar, geo-thermal and bio mass, there is no remaining mechanism to bring these to market, they have all collapsed.

No Kyoto, no CO2 trading markets and no renewable energy investment markets. Without investment in such markets they cannot survive.

<< RENIXX is the key international stock market index for renewables and tracks the worlds top 30 largest renewable energy companies based in the USA, EU and China. This market is down 90 percent since 2007. (Sources; The Australian and NZ Climate Science Foundation)

In the USA alone eight of their largest subsidized renewable energy manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy between 2007 and 2012. Beacon Power Corp, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Babcock and Brown, Mountain Plaza Inc and Solar Millennium. The cost to the US taxpayer is U$ 3.9 Billion.

A further six subsidized green energy companies are in default or in decline at a cost to the US taxpayer of U$ 6 Billion. The wind industry in the USA, the largest in the world, is predicted to lose 70 to 90 percent of its orders. Investors predict its total demise.

As at March 28 2013, “CHINA'S Suntech reached its zenith as the world's largest solar panel producer, but has plunged to the nadir of bankruptcy in just a year, highlighting the woes of the industry it shaped”. (Sources; the Global Warming Policy Foundation and The Australian) >>

So until and unless the CAGW “science’ is good enough to kick start the three essential economic pillars, renewables has nowhere to go.