While I understand the plight of sugar cane growers in Australia and their need to obtain additional financial returns from their crops, the call for a sugarcane ethanol industry is by far less attractive than the production of the sweetener sorbitol.

Ethanol is a 19th century alcohol fuel product whereas ‘hydrogen’ is the fuel of the twenty-first century for all vehicles including trucks, buses, tractors, airplanes, ships and cars.

It will be interesting to observe the reactions of Federal and State Governments to hydrogen fuels when they are tested as to whether they support the interests of the foreign multinational oil conglomerates or what is in the best interests of Australia’s people.

More on Hydrogen is available from…

Selwyn Johnston – Leichhardt Independent 2007

http://www.johnston-independent.com/hydrogen_fuel.html#.

One major point that devalues the line of argument used in this article against Ethanol is that Ethanol produced from Sugar Cane as produced by the Brazil is positive regarding greenhouse gasses. I don't know the references but the studies have been done.
Brazil can produce ethanol from any crop they would wish so why don't they produce ethanol from grain crops. It is simply not as efficient as from sugar cane.

Whilst Jerremy is sugesting ethanol from grain in Canada is currently not as efficient as it could be ( new processes could change that) it is not the same situation with ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil nor would it be from ethanol produced from sugar in Queensland using the Brazialian processes in the future.

John Powell

Given the Australian landscape's position in relation to the pressures on it from present agricultural practices, diverting farmland to ethanol production is not in its interests.
However, the production of an alcohol (methanol or ethanol) as a byproduct of landscape restoration (from salinity, for carbon-to-soil, etc.) may be quite a plus. It is the only positive spin I have heard of regarding alcohol as a fuel.

What Brown has not provided is the url that will enable us to check the validity of the assumed inputs of building, running and repairing the tractor etc. The actual amount per litre is highly dependent on the amount of use the tractor is put to and this exposes the analysis to considerable subjectivity. The extraordinary liberties with the facts that were taken by its precursers, the so called 'ecological footprint' analyses, were well documented. So there is no way that this stuff can be accepted until we get to weigh up the family jewels.

It is also incumbent on such an analysis of broader costs of a given volume of product to consider the broader benefits of the use of that volume of product. That, generally, is why cost clerks are rarely invited onto the board of directors, they lack the broader perspective to put those costs into proper context.

Well, despite the fact that my original post (above) was written as tongue in cheek, the reality of the situation is as I wrote it - the end user has the final say.

Whilst all you so-called boffins/pseudo-boffins argue the point about alternative fuels, real users only care about what they can get for their buck.

Until you high-fallooting theorists start to get real about delivery of product to the consumer, your brain waves and sentiments aren't worth a pinch of it.

Stop the bulsh' of the greeny alternatives. Turn on the new fuel now. And it had better deliver quality power, because we the fuel consumers really know and do care about what we're getting. We may be petrol-heads, but we're not stupid and when it comes to value for money, where power is concerned, we really do know what we're talking about. We ain't no lefty academics, we're practical men.

And to the hydrogen man, bring it on - it's the very best fuel ever, but show us how you can create it and still be cost effective. At the moment NO fuel is anywhere near as cost effective as regular gasoline/petrol. If you're engine wise, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you're some sort of gas-bag academic, without grease under your fingernails, who knows nothing about fuel efficiency, then you won't know what I'm talking about.

Power comes from expending energy - simple fact. Oil, petrol, is very good at doing it and nothing to date comes anywhere near it for the price or availability.

Claimed energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is disputed for different fuels, particularly when the EI part involves unproven economies of scale. Pimental et el claim the energy gain from US corn ethanol is less than 1.0 while others estimate the gain from sugar cane derived ethanol as at least 1.5. Advocates of ethanol fermented from cellulose via genetically engineered yeast claim possible energy gains of 7 or 8. The energy gain for petrol is thought to be about 30. Cellulosic ethanol was in the VIP cars at the recent G8 Summit courtesy of Canadian company Iogen, a fact strangely omitted by Jeremy Brown. A dramatic petrol extender is an 85% ethanol 15% petrol blend used in hybrid cars with extra batteries that can be charged by renewable energy. Proponents claim these cars can stretch each litre of petrol to 300km or so. Before condemning ethanol you want to consider factors such as oil depletion, local energy self sufficiency, the greenhouse effects of most other fuels and whether it might be beneficial to keep some of the world's 600 million cars on the road.