Sounds good, in reality it won't work. Number one problem is government obsession with maintaining the monopolies of multinational oil companies at our expense.

Ethanol's only good to a point, considering the current effects of cane growing on the great barrier reef, having more of the same will only lead to more enviro degradation. Approaching it as John Matthews proposes is stupid in the extreme, solving nothing, only creating more problems and keeping the price of fuel at exorbitant levels.

The only approach is promoting the growing and production of biodiesel crops, which is not only better for engines, but doesn't pollute, uses many different crops and can be processed on site or locally. This would reduce transport costs, increase farm incomes dramatically and improve the environment.

Virtually all seed producing plants provide usable oils. Wild radish (a weed) produces about 48% usable oil, when converted using common drain cleaner and ethanol or methanol, it becomes a better fuel than petro diesel. With little pollution, better lubricity, cleaner operation, longer engine life and very little change in power. It also replaces fossil lubricants, by-products can be used in plastics, soaps, chemicals and as stock feed, It's biodegradable and won't effect water or the environment, isn't caustic and not flammable as ethanol and petro fuels are. Our Native flora producers huge amounts of oils that are easily obtained without effecting nature.

Our government has scrapped research, subsidies and stuck this new industry with regulations and taxes that make it more expensive than fossil fuels, when the reality is we can produce and distribute it locally for less than 80c a litre.

It appears to me that John Mathews is an apologist for the elite, this article is another attempt to discourage us from removing monopoly control from the oil conglomerates. A professor of strategic management, give me a break, the only strategy in this article is to push an agenda he knows has no hope of getting off the ground.

Governments don't support anything, other than full control by their masters, multinational corporations

Well...yes and no, John Matthews.

Certainly bio-fuels is a better option, both financially and socially, than the nuclear one.

Bio-fuels have a part to play in the energy mix of the future, but let's not get too starry eyed about the role agricultural crops can play.

It is claimed that if Australia converted all of its export grain crops into alcohol we would supply one fifth of this nation’s transport energy in one blow. Sounds great, until we learn that Australia is one of the few nations in the world having a large net surplus of exported food.

At present agricultural lands the world over are under stress from the demands placed on them for food production. So are natural forests, being decimated to make create more arable land.

Now what will happen if we place huge, competing demands on agriculture, to supply crops for energy supply?

Sooner or later we discover there is no free lunch in energy supply. We find that there is a major downside to every choice we make.

So long as our per capita energy consumption is way, way above sustainable levels, we in Australia should get off this mindless, masculine power trip. Shifting from one energy source to (even arguably more benign) ones does not confront the real global energy crisis we have before us.

Dependence on energy is our addiction. Oil has been our drug. Withdrawal has to be our starting point. Satiating our dependence with other fuels should not be our prime focus.

Good on you for your cheerful certainty, John. By all means promote bio-fuels. But, in doing so, please don’t turn a blind eye to its gross limitations.

Well, it's easy to wave one's hands in the air and allege that a particular technology is the solution to all our problems. But where are the numbers?

Mathews comments "the bio-reactors could use crushed cane as their energy source, so there is no net energy consumption."

One would certainly hope that a purported fuel source was a net producer of energy (ignoring the free energy input from the sun). So it sounds as if Mathews thinks that the only energy inputs are those required for running the reactor. There are many others, such as the energy required to move the feedstock from where it's grown to the reactor, and to move the fertiliser output back to the fields. Then there's the energy to run the farm gear required to plant, fertilise, and the harvest the feedstock. Next we have the energy required to build the bio-reactor, the farm equipment, and the trucks that move the feedstock and fertiliser around. The list goes on.

Even if the net result is a positive energy production, something that still seems to be an open question, these energy inputs reduce the net energy production, which in turn increases the cost of the energy produced. If the economics of biofuel really stood up that well, we'd be running our cars on ethanol now. I notice that we're not.

The same lack of rigour is visible in Mathew's criticism of the economics of Nuclear power. By suggesting that the power stations require a subsidty during construction, and during production, Mathews is double counting. The most detailed study todate indicates that a subsidy is required to address the startup risks, but that the underlying cost of production is very competitive.

BTW, Mathews should learn the difference between "ml" and "Ml". I doubt he really meant millilitre. Getting it wrong could be a typo. Twice indicates ignorance.

Sylvia Else.

Just looking at sustainable food supply in isolation (leave personal transport out of the picture for now).

My notional understanding is that pre-oil farmers had to devote one quarter of their farmland to feeding their motive power - horses, bullocks.

I also read that for every calorie of food energy consumed, a well managed farm (pre-oil) could produce 10 calories of food energy for distribution. If so, that was a worthwhile "profit".

Now I am told that we squander far more calories of oil energy (ancient sunlight) than is produced by our crops, no matter that our modern farming is "intensive". In other words, we may have been operating at a loss for decades, subsidised by free oil energy (yes, it was free, because we didn't have to create it).

Questions:

1. Using mechanised farming equipment, what proportion of our arable land will required to produce the fuel to farm the rest?

2. Can we go on farming "intensively" in the present manner?

3. Should we be addressing the crucial matter of food before worrying about personal transport?

4. Should there be major research into these fundamentals undertaken by a de-politicised CSIRO?

- any experts out there at all? Hello!

It seems odd to conflate nuclear energy largely for electricity with biofuels for vehicles, though I think connections will emerge over time. I won't hazard a guess as to Australia's biofuel potential but I wouldn't put it more than a third of current petroleum use. The reasons are acreage conflict with food production, the need for water, oil input to fertiliser and the fuel needs of tractors and tankers to get a final product to the bowser. Ironically that means that as oil depletes then ethanol production in particular will decline in lockstep unless the energy inputs can be done 'in house'. BTW I'm experimenting with field of canola to make home made diesel. However low carbon electricity including wind and nuclear could make that biofuel go further via plug-in hybrid cars. That implies more nuclear electricity but less overall fuel use. Given the insatiable demand for fuel the alternative route would likely be coal based liquid fuels with much greater greenhouse emissions.

Could somebody explain why burning ethanol would produce less atmospheric CO2 than burning coal or petrol....

John Matthews’ article is encouraging. These sorts of things should most definitely be pursued rather than the nuclear option. But as the first four posters have pointed out, it ain’t anywhere near as simple as John makes it sound. Economies of scale, energy budgets and various other factors complicate the issue greatly.

“What are you doing, Kim Beazley? When will Labor make the rising cost of imported oil to Australian taxpayers the centrepiece of its campaign?”

This has surely got to be the most pertinent questions in Australian politics right now. As I have said quite a few times on this forum, there is the most glaring political vacuum, and consequently the most amazing political opportunity, for Labor to jump into, and set itself up as a very different party to the incumbents, and give us a real alternative at the next election, instead of the current absurd situation of voting for ‘dumb’ or ‘very slightly dumber’.

The opportunity is centred on the urgency to meet the challenges presented by peak oil or continuously rising fuel prices. From there it extends into climate change and overall sustainability issues.

If Online Opinion forum is anything to go by, the Australian populace is heartily sick of the economic rationalist, multinational-panderings of our governments, Federal and State, whether it be Labor or Liberal. There is a very good indication that a large portion of the community would pretty much automatically support Labor if it took up the sustainability paradigm, and a whole lot more would support it once Labor got into a concerted promotional campaign and showed that it was genuine. This could easily happen before the next election….. and lead to the political paradigm shift that we have to have if we are to save ourselves from a fate at least as bad as the great depression and most probably very much worse

What point have I missed? Other that is than a change in the way of business and a more disciplined (attractive sounds like law and order or a brothel) approach to living, even other imagining as the purpose of life.
I digress!
What is wrong with the Rocky Mountain Institute material www.rmi.org in particular the approach to “winning the end game in oil”? Applicable Lovins says world wide but directed to American ways.
This must be Costello’s feared anti American view at large.
Still maybe his thoughts and they are voluminous, Amory Lovins that is, are wrong despite much world wide adoption including Australia’s

We once had a Sugar Research Institute that did research for Australian sugar farmers funded by growers and Govt. The Govt. dropped its funding and the growers were not inclined to fund it alone.

So some bright spark had the idea to sell the research overseas and let Brazil etc. fund this research body. Guess where the cane harvesters are being made now? - Yes Brazil.

I would not put too much faith in our sugar industry (foriegn owned)to co-operate. Individual groups of farmers have tried to get backing for ethanol production but with little or no support.

The vast majority of ethanol produced in Australia comes from wheat, remember Johnny's mate, an industry that has its own issues. Will they want another player in thier business?

No, certainly no expert here, Chris;) I'll give my opinion anyway.

Sylvia, you said, “ the underlying cost of production (of nuclear power) is very competitive”
Sylvia, Matthews didn’t mention security and storage costs; when you count the costs of 24/7 high security (think of terrorism) needs plus the costs of safe nuclear waste storage, the figurers are less attractive. I think money could be better spent since nuclear energy will only sustain us for a few decades.

I used to dislike the idea of biodiesel as a replacement of petrol for a few reasons: because it sets up competition for land that could be used to grow fuel and forests; because the economical temptation would be there to grow oil from palms, which is said to be the cheapest crop to be growing, but also one of the most destructive crops. The development of oil-palm plantations is responsible for 87+% of the deforestation in Malaysia. Is that info still correct...any experts?

Although I still dislike the idea of biodiesel for these reasons, I now see the benefits of using bio-ethanol produced from purified waste oils, farm wastes etc.
I am still not keen on growing crops merely for the production of biodiesel. Will our rising demands become unsustainable and will eventually even more rainforest area be under threat?

Biodiesel, as far as I know, is not accepted by engines ‘as is’ but needs to be blended with petrol; this means that we will still depend on oil supply and that it still is only a temporary solution. Correct me if this information is outdated.

I also am worried about the high water demand needed for irrigating these oil crop fields.

Ah- as you can see I do not really have a firm opinion on the issue, still collecting facts and figures. But for me, nuclear power is out, no matter how economically it turns out to be.

I'm also reading up on hydrogen- anyone thinking this is a reasonable option? I suppose we will still depend on gas when we talk about hydrogen?

Oops, correction:
"...used to dislike the idea of biodiesel as a replacement of petrol for a few reasons: because it sets up competition for land that could be used to grow FOOD (not fuel) and forests;"

Taswegian, let us know how your interesting experiment turns out!

Celivia, the first diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil. To use biodiesel, you only need to change your filters as the Biodiesel cleans out the sludge left by petro diesel. You don't need extra cropping areas, you can recover usable oils from native plants and nitrogen plants used to rejuvenate soils after cropping and not harm them.

Continuing to use explosive combustion, compared to compression combustion, is ridiculous. Diesels, more economical, more pulling power, more reliable, longer life spans and can keep up with most petrol cars. Petro diesel, have large amounts of fine exhaust particles, as with all fossil fuels, they're carcinogenic. Biodiesel, doesn't have those problems.

The problem is getting people see beyond the cartels propaganda, forced upon us by bureaucracy, politics, the media and big business. Biodiesel is the best approach medium term and its sustainable.

The next step is refined pure vegetable oil, with the glycerine removed, then we wouldn't need ethanol for refining, providing a fuel supply you could buy in any shop and also cook with it. Vegetable oil can provide the current and future needs of technology, without degrading the environment.

With local biodiesel production, along with solar, wind, hydro and tidal generation, we'd solve many problems, create many small industries, jobs and rural economic rejuvenation. Our current account deficit continues to grow.

Wouldn't it be better rejuvenating our rural sector, increasing our industries, export markets and improving the environment at the same time. As well as reduce the cost of fuel, giving our local tourist industry a big boost. Its called rational logic, not illogical irrationality, as displayed by our current elite.

But it won't happen, the idiots are to ignorant to see past the stupidity of their fatal approach. John Matthews is a prime example. You can solve any problem with commonsense, but not with economic globalisation

Alchy

You are correct (this has got to stop now!) We know some solutions to our fuel dilemma but vested interests are chopping them off at the knees.

They want us to pay $100 a barrel for oil (the futures exchange price not anything like the real price) this will keep interest rates lower and politicians can gloat about how clever they are.

I would debate your view that petrol fumes cause cancer, some chemicals are carcinogenic but no real link has been substantiated. Maybe another day.

There is still the technical hurdle of converting cellulose to ethanol, so clearing that would open up enormous possibilities for biomass. One potential biofuel source not mentioned was algae. Algae produce about thirty times the yield of other crops, grows in nutrient and salt contaminated water, and typically store about half their mass as oil. The NREL ended its research into algae as a biofuel in 1995 due to budgetary constraints.

Unfortunately, the subsidies seem to go toward old technologies that will never offer a viable solution, so to me seem more like nepotism.

Yes, Alchemist it happened to us in Dalwallinu when us wheat cockies dropped down to quotas in the late 1960s, a group of us invested in Graincol which took over an old distillery south-east of Perth.

Owing to the glut of world wheat the government was interested in Graincol also. But I guess you are not surprised that when grain came good with the Soviets buying all the US wheat crop after a Russian crop failure, up went wheat prices again. I guess you are not surprised that the government lost interest in bio-fuel, costing us a few thousand quid.

There is an old saying among cockies about never trust Big Biz or the middle-man as is now happening to our dairy farmers in WA, who gave away their Board. No help from the government either, as was proven back with Graincol.

Can't really trust co-ops either, just look at Wesfarmers now, formerly our own co-op but now really turning up its nose to us cockies all ready to do us down.

Cheers, mate.

It would be nice to get a few chemical engineers and mechanical engineers into the energy debate. Economists and anti-nuclear activists totally lack a basic understanding of any of this. Problem is that those who know are too busy doing it and the commentary is dominated by those who don´t.

As an electrical engineer myself let us say that most technologies are being researched by someone. A new technology can take years to get into a practical form and aparently good ideas often turn out blind alleys.

Regarding hydrogen it does not occur in great quahtities on its own but in combination with other atoms and has to be separated from these with the expenditure of energy. The laws of physical chemistry and physics mean that we have in practice to expend more energy separating the hydrogen than we will get burning it. It is a gain only if energy such as solar or wind can be successfully used to provide this energy. Much work has been done and will be done to try to achieve this but there is no iron clad guarantee of success.

The learned Professor says "in comparison, alternative energy sources such as biofuels promise better traction on greenhouse gases, can make a direct contribution to solving the oil import problem and reducing the rising costs of fuel, and require no public subsidies at all." He should be investing his own money with is ears pinned back. Hey, launch an IPO for all those who agree! Let's return in 6 months and see if he really believes what he whas written.

Narcissist asks (14 July 2006 1:42:54 PM):

"Could somebody explain why burning ethanol would produce less atmospheric CO2 than burning coal or petrol...."

Yes: The inputs to ethanol production are plants, and plants get their carbon from the atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is part of the Carbon Cycle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle)

The sun can be the energy source.
Also see
www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
For more on H2

Steve, I didn't mean petrol fumes were carcinogenic, however they've been proved to effect our nervous systems badly. I can't produce figures but have read where many in the motor industry suffer from skin and other cancers which they attribute to the constant exposure to petro-chemical products. It amazes me, but doesn't surprise me as to how blind most are to the reality an ease of real alternatives in providing our energy needs.

Taswegian, many in Tas have been using biodiesel and straight veggie oil for more than 3 decades. Canola's a very poor oil producers compared to wild radish, wattle, Jatropha and other plants. Because plants use CO 2 to grow, using oil seed solves many problems and for those interested, this is an Aus biodiesel site, http://www.biofuelsforum.com/

Ethanol, hydrogen and nuclear, requires massive infrastructure, biodiesel, requires cold pressed veggie oil, and a drum. The only problems with methanol, it's very toxic, methanol's produced from natural gas and other fossil sources. It effects the nervous system without an symptoms and can be deadly, so if possible ethanol should be used, which again's very easy to produce using a small reflux still. You can recover your ethanol (methanol) with the same still. Small amounts of ethanol (safe, non toxic) can be produced using most plants, so you have clean, environmentally renewable and sustainable fuel.

Bushbred, I remember well what happened regarding “Graincol “, its happening again with biodiesel because the elite realise they can't control it and are more interested in their profits than the future. They denounce it hoping the common slaves will continue to listen to their lies and ignore the true reality.

Fester algae is also a fine oil producer, its recovery is harder, growing its easy. With the right environment is reproduces constantly, but again it requires large areas, infrastructure and processing. Anyone who has a hectare of land, can grow enough fuel for a year as well as food and other crops, improving the environment, so is the problem ignorance, stupidity or both.

1. put commuters on electric mopeds, batteries charged by sunlight.

2. reduce population.

3. turn off airconditioning.

it's easy to fix the looming ecological disaster, but as long as the national policies are selected by politicians, it wont happen.

I thought I use one of DEMOS's suggestions to show what happens when people come out with ideas without looking at the numbers

"put commuters on electric mopeds, batteries charged by sunlight."

Fine. Let's do that. Here's an electric scooter of the kind that the commuters might be prepared to ride.

http://www.hsddc.com/english/product.htm

Its battery capacity is 576 watts. To charge this while the commuter is at work, allowing for less than optimum conditions and losses during the charging process, you're going to need something like this

http://www.suntechaustralia.com.au/product_page.php?prod_code=STA120-12

Note that it's nearly a metre and half long, two thirds of a metre wide, and weighs 12 kilograms. For each commuter one of these would have to be mounted somewhere where it's nearly horizontal and is not in the shade. You also get little change out of $1000 for one.

Now, who wants to stand up and say that that's even remotely practical? It's just not going to happen.

Sylvia.

Alchemist writes: “Wouldn't it be better rejuvenating our rural sector, increasing our industries, export markets and improving the environment at the same time. As well as reduce the cost of fuel, giving our local tourist industry a big boost. Its called rational logic, not illogical irrationality, as displayed by our current elite. But it won't happen, the idiots are too ignorant to see past the stupidity of their fatal approach.”

It is all very well for us to discuss the various methods of implementing alternative fuels sources, but it is really the politics that counts.

How do we get our government to be proactive on this stuff, and to the extent necessary to gain the smoothest possible transition out of the oil age and into the age of genuine sustainability? This is the big question.

Just about the only possibility that I can see is for Labor to embrace the sustainability groundswell that is now very substantial across the country and to set itself up as a very different alternative to the Libs, rather than a slightly less appealing imitation of them. But of course, pig trotters will evolve into wings first.

I just don’t see any point in even mentioning the Greens or Democrats, so just pretend I didn’t mention them.

And of course the incumbents have no political incentive to change very much, so they won’t.

Progressively, things will happen, but it will always be reactive, and far too little too late.

Regardless of all the great ideas that have been presented on this thread, and several others on OLO, and in various other institutions, it looks as though we are screwed…. because the political scenario simply presents a brick wall to making it happen with the magnitude and within the timeframe needed.

I would love to hear any ideas for getting around this problem.

Thumbs Down for Biofuels!

This report just out of the US maps the future for US and thus the world's shift from dependence on Oil for transpot fuel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/business/15energy.html?8br

It involves five items, none of which are the nugatory biofuel option. The emphasis is on sub $35 per barrel extraction costs.

* coal liquefaction
* shale oil extraction
* cellulose conversion to bagasse
* enhanced CO2 recovery of old oil wells
* For-real motor and oil industry R&D into fuel efficiency forced on them by national security issues.

Recent world political turmoil is sure to see a rapid take up of this change in strategy in the US and I believe also in Australia as US technology trickles down.

Additionally, with no US hurricanes so far this season and a high probability there will be none, the CO2 greenhouse warming issues are going to be far less important in the debate.

Australia has the capacity to develop these options, as well as already onboard Dry Rock Geothermal plants, without waiting for US spin offs.

Unfortunately all we have is a PM who is only interested in immigrating and workplacing Australians into gridlock and oblivion while he gets cosy with the 40% of NSW and SEQld who were born overseas in the belief that they will give him a mandate to forever rule the rest of the nation into an economic dead end that he calls "locking in future prosperity" .

What do you say Australia?

Vote the bastards out, starting with NSW Labor and ending with a convincing defeat of Howard at the November 2007 elections.

Then maybe we can face the REAL issues like oil independence and environmental security without the pain of being sold out and betrayed to overseas interests by a myopic, self centered PM.

One idea that may be useful in getting out of the Howard rut and exploring the above fuel INDEPENDENCE options is to get behind Peter Costello and give him a 'test drive' before the Nov 2007 elections.

If he can deliver a saner federal leadership, well and good. Saves us having to go through an unknown Beasley period.

The problem is that we will have to learn to ignore the Gale Wynan style (and bad spelling) propaganda coming from ALL of our newsmedia outlets. The pathetic "Howard-hero to State Labor Governments" V "the Costello smirk campaign" coming from daily newssheets is appalling. God help us all if and when the new media monopolyship laws take effect. We will have to get used to black being called white then I can tell you! And just wait when "ethnic developers kicking Aussie vets out of housing estates" becomes "Heroic developers remove deadwood to create a brighter, newer Australia" hits the headlines.

Australia can never be energy independent, sustainable, environmentally secure or free from tin pot dictators while John Howard is PM.

Australia do your best!

I really like the idea of biodiesel and am considering replacing my 12 year old petrol car with a European diesel one, as they can use biodiesel without modification (and are very fuel efficient too). I read recently that BP (which now stands for Beyond Petroleum) is planning a biodiesel rollout of some sort - does anyone know more of this? On the oils for fuel front, I wonder if hectare of avocadoes would produce more oil than a hectare of more conventional oil crops? The trees could keep soaking up carbon all year round, and would require less cultivation/energy use than other crops. In the meantime, using old Maccas cooking oil is very appealing.

There is so much the individual can do much at very little cost some at no cost other than discipline others with a pay back time of a few years, all saving GHG production and some reducing the use of oil.

See the Greenhouse sites for Aust on the web and those of America and Britain. None need big brother approval some even still subsidised.

Maybe Australians have become too dependent on Gov hand outs the cry of the market believers, though the market forces seem too slow and too patchy in application. The fact that the current Bushfire enquiry is highlighting a failure of warning, when Australians know the dangers and combat/evasive procedures, is perhaps evidence of our failing independence.
Perhaps it is the propaganda for Nuclear or clean coal that delays action, One does little to solve the problems either GHG or Motive power and the other is much in the future though a good earner for Australia.
Perhaps it is the small percentage of spending that is devoted to energy, at least prior to the petrol price hike.
But to wait for the Gov is to further delay, wasting limiting time. Already failure to act has allowed thirty years of indifferent energy efficiency and construction of industries and dwellings on the basis of lot’s of cheap energy.

Ludwig, the current political system's dead, you see the turmoil of its collapse around the country. People will vote for change, when another approach is put before them that can't be denied, by rat bag packs of educated ignoramuses.

Political party change, requires changing its support base, (big business and union donations), who'll never give up their despotic power hold. Its up to the individual to get their act together, or go down with the ship. Look at history, when danger is before us, only 1 % take action to avoid calamity. The other 99% rely on their leaders, even when they lie and send them to slaughter.

No government tells the truth if it means the cannon fodder it commands would desert it. That's why there's so many civilian casualties in wars, their too stupid to get out of the way before it gets to them.

Kaep, wasn't it you who stated, huge hurricanes would hit the USA this season starting in May. The link you posted, is just another fairy tale put up by the fools who refuse to look forward. I'd be interested to know how this will decrease GHG's.

I've no interest in believing anything will change, history shows us all societies collapse very quickly, (5-10years) causing massive loss of all descriptions.

I post on these subjects, to give people alternatives, they can use for themselves. I've no interest in fools constantly living in denial of reality. If you live in a city, and rely on it for support, you'll go down with it.

Stupid people do nothing, becoming trapped in dying, despotic, violent cities. Look at the social situation of cities, most don't even know their neighbours. Say hello to someone in the street, and they run in panic or attack you. Say what you like, but the answers are all around us and easy to use, what Kaep and the other fools envisage, is just another nail in humanities coffin.

Kaep what's your sure fire effective now approach, more of the same just different technologies, sounds rather infantile and regressive.

KAEP, what is the point of voting any of the “bastards” out when there are no better alternatives?

You say: “…get behind Peter Costello and give him a 'test drive' before the Nov 2007 elections.”

Aaaarrgh….. Excuse me while I perk.

As bad as Howard is, Costalotello would be worse. He has shown himself to be enormously shallow, both in his understanding of a diversity of issues, and his depth of expression on even those few issues that he does have half a handle on. He has also shown himself to be extraordinarily one-eyed and dishonest, especially with the insistence that Australia’s population will go into decline without high immigration or a boosted birthrate. If you think Howard has been dishonest…

He would make the most awful PM.

And worse than this, he would probably cause Labor to win power. The problem with that is that Labor would not see any reason to change and would basically carry on with the same old expansionist agenda, whereas if Howard fought the next election, there would be much more pressure on Labor to come up with something substantially different to their current mirror image of the Libs.
--

Alchemist, I don’t quite share your despair over our political system, and I think we need to both look after our personal future and work hard towards reforming our governance.

You write: “Political party change, requires changing its support base….”

Absolutely. And this has to include much more than just the mum and dad voters, it has to include the business sector and the unions. But despite the current apparent stranglehold of the vested-interest profit motive on governments, I think there is hope.

(oh dear, in my last post I said: “it looks as though we are screwed”…. and now I’m expressing hope! Oh my poor head)

"Can't really trust co-ops either, just look at Wesfarmers now, formerly our own co-op but now really turning up its nose to us cockies all ready to do us down."

Bushbred, you are missing something there. There are plenty of
farmers around, who kept their Coop-Wesfarmers shares and have
made far more money out of them, then they ever made out of farming.

Similarly NZ farmers are doing extremely well from their Fonterra
investments, Fonterra of course owning a number of milk companies in Aus, including in the West. The moral of the story is that farmers need to be involved in the the value adding of their products, if they want to avoid being screwed by the system. Your Graincol story
is one bad one, there are many good ones around

Why not build a Nuclear Power Plant off the Northern Darwin Coast, and a few Desalination Plants.

The plant could provide more than enough power to supply, the plants, and any pumps necessary to pipe the desalinated water down to the drier regions of the country where it is needed, as well as provide a good boost to the National Power Supply.

No need for so much security around the plant, the salt water croc's will take care of any would be terrorists, and I am sure some smart scientist can design a croc repelling device for the maintenence men diving to keep the operation running smoothly.

How about it Johnny?

Thanks David,

Let me see if I've got this straight.

The actually burning of oil and ethanol produce no appreciable difference in the atmospheric CO2 emmissions.

The benifit of using ethanol is that it comes from a plant and will absorb CO2 from the soil and atmosphere.

In order to use ethanol, large tracts of land would need to be cleared of plants which are already reducing CO2 from the soil and atmosphere.

So, wouldn't using ethanol have no overall impact on CO2 - planting species that are well known for their CO2 uptake would be better - but would be reduce the bio-diversity, particularly of natives, in affected areas?

Thanks for the update, Alchemist.
After having done some more reading on the topic, I now favour the idea of an algae industry, especially if there’s a real possibility to utilise otherwise vacant areas such as parts of the deserts, which are unsuitable for other uses.

Not enough people are convinced that there, in fact, exists a real replacement for crude oil. And that all that is required now is action and initial costs to make it happen. I believe (although not 100% convinced yet) that this is economically and environmentally viable.

Yep, I agree that the fact that we are still driving around on petrol and diesel has not much to do with reality, but more with interests of the big investors/political corner of doom.
Keeping the public as uninformed as long as possible, or dragging out change will mean profits.

Politicians, I am sure, will say in defence that consumers and the business world aren’t ready for biodiesel yet...

There is currently a test underway in New Zealand to produce biodiesel from algae harvested from sewage treatment ponds.If successful, it could lead to the production of fuel, fertilizer and clean water from effluent, and would build on existing infrastructure.

Ah thank you, Fester, I did a search on this and found the article in the NZ Herald.

I like this idea now even better than the ‘growing algae in the desert’ one because it is simpler and will probably require less engineering and transport. This sounds very promising!

I haven’t been able to find out how long this NZ tests is going to take. Can’t wait for the results!

All I have read about micro-algae has been positive so far. There is, so it seems, a real possibility to produce this on a large-scale; so large-scale in fact, that there would be enough supply to replace ALL of our petrol at a very reasonable cost.

I’d like to look at it from all angles, so did anyone come across any negative points about micro-algae biodiesel?

Is there an algae-rush coming up?

Biofuel-people need-to-understand that biofuels-don't-have the-Power-density-or-online-Capacity to avoid-PEAK-OIL-world-population-collapses. We HAVE to use the US High tech coal approach for this reason and also because we must be in line with US-industrial-strategy-to-SURVIVE-the-next-difficult-10-years.

As-for-the-politics, the point of voting OUT Iemma and Howard is to FIND the other choices. You won't find them by sitting-on-bums, complaining-and-ultimately-being-handed-your 'notice-to-quit-life' letter complete with white-feathers. And if the next lot are no good then vote them out. This is why Costello should be given a test-drive NOW. The more we change corrupted and lazy politicians the harder they'll think about the workplace-immigration-monopoly crimes they are perpetrating-on-average-Australians in the false name of "future-prosperity". They will then realise we KNOW Australia is-already-LOCKED-INTO-a-very-wealthy-MINERALS-future.

In-the-meantime we no longer want to-be-subjugated-into-submission-by-corrupt-half-witted-politicians seuling ethnic-developers (minorities-might-add) with big dollars onto us . They build over our rights, privileges and quiet enjoyment of our major cities, while taking future-wealth off us like-lollies-from-a-baby and sucking-their-thumbs-in-victory to-prove-it.

If we stop development in SYDSEQ, immigration will cease and Westfields, Macbank and PBL will find other places to make obscene profits and other peoples to cheat out of their heritage.

After a 10 year hiatus from immigration I am sure we will be have enough built up infrastructure again to cope with further immigration and development. We all want to be the New York of the Pacific in SYDSEQ, but on OUR TERMS, on a timeline that puts profits out of the reach of specific individuals. We must refuse to dance into oblivion to the tune of some fat overpaid executive's wet dreams. And the same argument applies to Australia as a republic. The longer the transition time the less the motivation for opportunism, corruption and injustice.

March 7, vote for Debenham and let HIM know WE want development halted in SYDNEY and the NSW-Nth-Coast. If not, let-him-know-he's-out-as-well.

Anyone who thinks this approach is infantile-or-regressive needs to understand, people power will only get one chance from here.
The STAKES ARE SO INCREDIBLY HIGH

Kaep, who cares if biodiesel can't power the world, the most important thing is to get this country together and let the rest take care of themselves. Examples are what creates the best impression in all facets of life.

Algae on its own won't solve anything, as with any problem you need to take a broad approach. Coal's just more of the same corporate control resulting in elitist power increasing. Personally I'm fine, my fish and chip powered vehicles cost 35c a litre, once our small reflux still's finished, it'll remove the major cost, non renewable toxic methanol. Our costs will then reduce to 13cL, beat that economic advantage with your unsustainable ideas.

We've just finished testing wattle seed oil, one species gives lots of oil from one tree. Now instead of having to grow crops, we can harvest our property without endangering the environment and using native plants.

Unlike coal, oil, ethanol, nuclear or other methods requiring high amounts of energy, transportation and environmental degradation, biodiesel at worst need only use energy for harvesting, pumping and heating in its creation process. As the harvesters run on biodiesel and the pumps and heaters are powered by solar and wind, our net effect on the environment is a positive.

Make all the statements you like, it won't change the economics or ecological problems associated with fossil fuels. Those hell bent on maintaining the status quo, are either ignorant, have a vested interest, or scared their way of life is threatened by the future ahead.

It's probably looking pretty rosy from your box in the city, that's until reality rolls through the door. The problem everyone faces is you can't stop the reality of the future we are causing. What's done to day, is what will be our future, its only when you change today the future has a chance of changing.

Alchemist,

You sound like the artilleryman in 'War-of-The-Worlds'.
Enjoy your underground madness. The rest of us are going to have to face up to the real-challenges-that-a-future-without-OIL-presents.
Oh and biodiesel is smoky and TOXIC. Sooner or later it will have to be banned for community health reasons.

One thing you may agree with though. The US Congress needs to pass a law-that-restricts-CEO-salaries of publically-listed-companies to-a-1-or-2million-dollar-per-year-salary, including bonuses, in order to halt terrorism. It is becoming apparent in Israel that defending the-world's-right-to-freedom-and-democracy while democracies are led-in-theory-by-elected-politicians but in-fact-by-overpaid-corporate-criminals is a hopeless task. The assymetry in this-kind-of-warfare-is-complex. It occurs-in-battlefields-and-boardrooms. We call it terrorism and it is essentially undefeatable by military means. This is because we know or ought to know damn well that terrorism is the consequence of ill intentioned manoeuvres and strategies all around the globe by arrogant CEOs.
How can we possibly WIN this war against terrorism when-we-are-every-bit-as-much-a-victim of CEO-monsters as any terrorist or the abused 'post-Bhopalian' communities that-have-bred-them.

It is becoming the JOKE of the-new-millennium.

Such a simple-change would save $trillions in the cost of failed diplomacies and costly wars. Not to mention the economic-and-social-paralysis that the-continual-threat-of-war-imbues. If you take the obscene-salarys away from CEOs the incentives for greed, corruption and ill treatment of world communities will ease. These communities will no longer have that fear for their futures that drives them to fight-to-the-death rather-than-submit-and-watch-themselves-and-their-loved-ones-degraded. Degraded in a mist-of-duplicity where foreign-governments-and-politicians tell them we fight for their DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM while CEOs put a 'Surplus-to-Requirement:Notice-to-Quit' in those communities' next post complete with white feathers and a dummy.

World-Governments need to understand the cost benefit ratio between taking away a few thousand CEOs' big salaries and taking away the dignity of billions of people. The CEOs WILL just do a Kenny Lay. They will NOT set our world alight with terrorism, war and hatred!

PS If the US gets to September without a hurricane, it will mean that climate change can be controlled without any deference to CO2 levels. That means 'CO2-Greenhouse-Warming' is not a causal factor in climate change. I-will-have-more-to-say-on-this-matter-in-September.

Kaep, thanks for providing us with evidence of your ignorance and lies, relating to this subject. Your certainly paranoid you may be wrong, clutching at straws by making ridiculous statement like,

“Oh and biodiesel is smoky and TOXIC. Sooner or later it will have to be banned for community health reasons.”

"Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to pass the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety testing in the US (one of the most thorough testing for current technology)."

http://www.rorrt.reachout.com.au/Issues/Biodiesel.aspx

"Toxicity facts for biodiesel usage include:
emissions that cause health problems such as asthma are reduced 47%
carbon monoxide (which is poisonous) is reduced 48%
carbon dioxide is 80% less
sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, is practically eliminated
combustion leaves 90% less unburned hydrocarbons, causing hydrocarbon emission (which produces smog and ozone depletion) to decrease 90%

Other positive qualities of biodiesel are:
It does not use more energy to make than it produces. Including the planting and harvesting of crops, as well as fuel production and transportation, for every unit of energy it takes to make biodiesel, 3.2 units are gained.
It can be mixed at any level with petroleum diesel to create a blend that is suitable for cars with minor, if any modifications (the most common is B-20, which is 20% biodiesel and 80% petrol diesel).
It has very little difference in performance, consumption, horsepower, torque, and haulage rates compared to diesel fuel.
The flash temperature (temperature it ignites in the air) is much higher for biodiesel making it safer to be around."

http://www.arfuels.com.au/files/ARF_Fact_Sheet_4_Biodiesel_Use.pdf

http://www.uidaho.edu/bae/biodiesel/

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/comparison/pubs/1ch4.pdf

I'll put my “underground madness” against your educated ignorance any day. Get and education in life and reality, instead of relying on the revolving door, head in the sand syndrome your life is on. Your not educated, just an indoctrinated number.

Here in Germany you can purchase Biodiesel at the pump at many of the petrol stations. Biodiesel makes up about 3% of the German diesel market (which is significant given the short time that it's been in use).

Here are some general facts about Biodiesel on the website of Germany's leading Biodiesel producer:

http://www.biodiesel.de/index.php3?hid=016&spid=2

From the same website, some information about the lubricity of Biodiesel:

http://www.biodiesel.de/index.php3?hid=014111&spid=2

This Biodiesel production is owned by a giant multinational agricultural corp. called Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). Their main website:

http://www.admworld.com/

Ev, thanks for the websites. They do cut the ground from under some of the nonsense claims made against biodiesel.
On the other hand, they provide clear evidence of the utter nonsense associated with uncritical acceptance of it as a replacement for fossil-fuel diesel.
"Archer Daniels Midland Company is one of the world's largest agricultural processors of soybeans, corn, wheat and cocoa. We work with farmers across the world to turn these crops into soymeal and oil, corn sweeteners, flour, cocoa and chocolate, ethanol and biodiesel, --."
If agricultural cropping is being expanded to provide biodiesel, we are being sold an "envionmental pup".
Currently the greatest scourge of Amazonian rainforest is the creation of farms for soya beans. As are palm oil plantations of South East Asian forests.
No matter how close to carbon-dioxide-neutral they might be, crops grown specificaly for biodiesel are suspect, wherever they are. Their effects upon biodiversity, and agriculture generally, are potentially neither benign nor sustainable in the long term. That is especially so in a world of expanding numbers of humans; of people who, in addition to an increased presence,have a craving for more individual consumption

Colinsett, your right ADM is a big problem as is all monopolies. That's why I advocate localised energy industries, they boost local economies, develop jobs and give rural producers cheaper alternatives. You can rotate crops, not clear more ground and still get oil seed. This lowers inflation, stabilises the economy and environment. It also allows farmers to produce food crops and get a return all year round.

If fuel were produced locally, it would reduce costs and increase our export markets as our products could be produced cheaper and more environmentally friendly thus establishing sustainability and reducing our trade deficit. With the right rotations, you eliminate chemicals, improve your soils and income.

We have many native plants capable of providing usable oils. Ethanol can be obtained from virtually any natural fibrous plant. We have wattles and eucalyptus that produce huge amounts of seed, yet more than 95% never germinates, by using 90% for oil with non destructive harvesting methods, you don't even have to change the land just develop machinery to work within the environment when harvesting.

The problem we face isn't answers, but the desire of people to want to take control of their lives and contribute to a viable future. Living in denial is not an option any more, because those things that were in the future, are now becoming a part of our present. Its not globalisation, economic growth, expansion we need, but sustainable environmental friendly technological growth.

A property that harvests it forests with no damage and producers more from less ground, would allow this country to become very self-sufficient. The native forests only need the rain, not irrigation

Myths surrounding Biodiesel fuels

This article shows the problems of using biodiesel while blindly touting fuel economy .. a false economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/automobiles/23AUTO.html?incamp=article_popular

* Biodiesel has only been EPA tested for the refined product which is shunned by Home Brew users as too expensive. They FILTER used oils full of toxic chemicals and saturated fats thinking that these chemicals are removed. All filtration removes are gross particulates. This means the bulk of biodiesel in use today contains TOXICS. EPA approvals for the fuel are null and void.

* The article complains that several miles from home, users have to flush their fuel lines with real diesel so the second hand fish shop stuff won't congeal and clog the lines. What about clogging lungs and arteries when unsuspecting asthmatics and cardiovascular sufferers breathe the stuff in?

There are clearly more ways that airborne substances can be toxic other than by containing the standard hydrocarbon combustion emission spectum of chemicals. If you wake up of a morning smelling like a fish shop, you are being POISONED no matter what some hair brained cheapskate or some blinkered EPA sciemntist or some 'soy bean agri entrepreneur' is telling you

Kaep, you get worse as you go along. Your link doesn't support your irrational and ridiculous reply, talk about making it up as you go, your at the top of the deluded liar pile and probably a monotheist.

It appears you've trawled the net, only finding one article you could misconstrue to satisfy your psychopathic ego, failing miserably. Hows the massive storms I believe you predicted for the USA starting in May this year going, just like your biodiesel theories it appears.

Unprocessed used veggie oil, does have problems with gelling, and filter clogging if your system is not set up and used properly. Biodiesel has no problems, just the opposite, giving longer life, smooth running, cleaner emissions and no environmental problems. Petro diesel requires changes to its make up for seasonal and regional reasons, using toxic additives. Engines using biodiesel can take a little longer to start in cold weather, however their higher lubricity overcomes the shearing effect on engine parts petro diesel creates.

As you consider 35cents a litre to expensive for the full production costs of biodiesel using waste oil and growing and producing it costs less than 15cents a litre, you must have a superior fuel costing much less, with better economic and environmental outcomes. So come on solve the worlds problems with your superior infinite wisdom.

My friends farms been running on biodiesel, for more than 10 years, you'll find farmers around the country doing the same. I have a 20 year old ute that's been using it for more than 5 years, done more than 450000 klm and runs smoothly, never had a fuel filter change since the first one, engine oil is cleaner and rarely needs changing.

Your post is fanciful in the extreme, its a known fact, biodiesel cleans fuel lines keeping them clean. The first time you use it your filter gets clogged with petro gunk, after that no cleaning is required. I'd check the relative thermodynamics of both fuels if I were you and get psychiatric help, you need it

Australia,

This Alchemist has sold his soul to the devil of agri business.

DO NOT let him sell your health and the health of your children.

If we want the pores of our skin to smell like a fish shop we will get a job serving in one. We do not want to wake of a morning any more to that sweet sickly smell of unrefined, bloody illegal biodiesel just so ignorant cheapskates can beat the current rise in oil prices.

What the? KAEP, I don’t understand why you think that biodiesel would be worse for your health than petrol/petrol diesel?

I think that the alchemist has some good and valid points you should consider- he seems to have a sound knowledge about the issue.

Anyway, before this article was published I was against the whole bio-diesel industry as well, and I have changed my mind about it now. I have learned from the article and the comments of OLO contributers and researched new information about biodiesel.

I really see a future for biodiesel as a replacement of petrol now.
First, I was opposed to biodiesel because I was worried about the forest-destructive oilpalm and soy farms and plantations as I mentioned in my earlier post. But I now especially like the idea of recycling used oil (when done properly- it will be disposed of otherwise so why not find a good use for it?) and of creating biodiesel from algae- my favourite.

It’s a good thing to collect as much information as you possibly can before forming a final opinion on it. In fact, I can say that I hardly ever have a ‘final’ opinion on an issue, as I would like to keep myself open to changes, new information, new ideas- even though I don't want to move away from some principles I have formed

Celivia,

Until biodiesel is cheaper than ether-diesel blends, Home Brewers will dominate. That means the whole thing is UNREGULATED and dangerous. They could accidentally put say, cyanide in their fuel mix and YOU wouldn't know.

Talk about gathering all the information.

You are intelligent enough to have read my posts and understood this issue.
This makes you come across as someone blowing an agri-business snow job.

KAEP, I said: “But I now especially like the idea of recycling used oil (when done properly…)”.
When something is done properly, I assume it is safely done. I don’t think there’s room for cyanide in biofuels that have been properly mixed, LOL. Next time when I mix my salad dressing from oils I’ll make sure not to accidentally put cyanide in it. I could, ya know- nobody would know till they have eaten it.

Jokes aside, I do agree with you that it would be a good idea to have regulated biodiesel available- I do see your point that accidents do happen. Do you have any links to articles about this safety issue?

When I said that I like the idea of recycling used oil, I never insisted on making home-brews though, if that would prove unsafe.
I get rid of my used oil by pouring it into a jar or bottle and disposing it in the garbage bin because I don’t know what else to do with it. I’d much rather take it to a local collection point from where a biodiesel company could pick it up to make biodiesel out of it in a safe (regulated) way. Same goes for all the left-over oils from fast-food outlets.

Perhaps there can be a short TAFE course organised about How to Make Your Own Biodiesel so people could be certified to do this at home.

"Talk about gathering all the information."
KAEP, I never said that I had ALL the information, but that with the information I have now, I have formed my opinion.
I am open to new information and I’m not afraid to change my opinion if I’d find my view clashes with facts about biodiesel.

There's always new research, new knowledge, new facts out there and no one has ALL the information.

Kaep, it's a known fact, pathological psychopaths get more irrational and ridiculous, as their delusional control structure collapses, under the weight of reality. Your post to Celivia speaks for its self.

Celivia, a couple of points, biodiesel production isn't illegal, nor unsafe, It's available from a growing number of fuel outlets around the country and many transport companies use it in various blends. Over the next 10 years, it will be subject to increasing fuel excise tax. It's a growth industry, offering many new jobs without damaging the environment. Unlike fossil fuels which are monopoly owned, it's production and distribution will introduce real competition bringing down fuel prices instead of increasing them. Even when full excise comes in, biodiesel will be much cheaper as it doesn't have to be carted round the world with high processing costs and it keeps our money in the country, not in cartels.

If a producer had a spill of vegetable oil prior to processing, they could either bring in the cows to lick it up, or let it soak into the ground improving the soil. A biodiesel spill, you could do the same with no harm Biodiesel is just vegetable oil without the glycerine in it, slippery but not dangerous. In its processing, you use alcohol and common drain cleaner.

With fossil fuels, before or after processing, a spill is an huge environment toxic disaster.

Biodiesel has a much higher flash point than petro, so its safer. Unlike petro products, you can handle biodiesel with safety, its vegetable oil, not a toxic poison fossil derived fuel.

These links will give you an idea of the difference between Kaep's paranoia and reality, there's many sites giving the same information, none the opposite.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~yrtg/diesel%20emissions.html

http://www.farmersfuel.com.au/SAFF%20Biodiesel.htm

There are already workshops at TAFE's in biodiesel production and commercial courses.

Thanks for the links, alchemist. I had my suspicions about the ‘facts’ KAEP believes in, because I really couldn’t find any other recent article that supports his view.
The only articles that offer criticism and opposing opinions on biodiesel are usually older articles in where problems are listed that since then have been resolved, so these views are outdated by now.

KAEP your concern seems to be mainly about smog, and it is true that biodiesel produces more Nitric Oxides than fossil fuel, but apart from that, I have read in many articles and reports that cars running on biodiesel ate still much cleaner (80% less CO2) than cars running on fossil fuels. Overall, biodiesel seems to be a lot cleaner and contain much less greenhouse gases.
I know how a certain concern can put you off a new development or new idea, like the concern I had (and still lingering in the back of my head) about the deforestation made me dislike biodiesel too, for that reason.

Still, biodiesel, in my opinion, is really the simplest and most viable solution, as far as I know, for fosil oil replacement because not only will it greatly reduce the release of greenhouse gases, it will be economically viable as you mention- the technique is already there and seems to be working fine, so there is no need for expensive research and development.

I said that the only lingering concern I still have in the back of my head is the growing demand in the future- will governments of the world always look for a cheap option of buying biodiesel from oilpalm plantations (because oil palms are probably the cheapest plant for this purpose) which will lead to more deforestation in Malaysia and other areas? Would we (need to) resort to using extra land for fuel crops otherwise needed for food crops?

to be continued

That’s why I’m hoping to find pacifying facts, for instance, that there are serious plans for a biodiesel industry based on algae. I haven't read of real plans yet. In Australia, a sunlit country, it should be a real possibility- why isn't there more talk or planning about this option?

But overall, biodiesel is really the best solution ‘we’ have come up with so far, isn’t it? The best thing to do is to make it work in the best and less damaging ways we can.

No amount of rudeness, ignorance and industry sponsored snow will save Biodiesel. Its a dead duck because the home brew aspect of the industry is UNREGULATED and DANGEROUS.

All the truth anyone needs is in the NYT article I presented. Dangerous Home Brew is cheaper than properly refined bioodiesel products. People are Home brewing biodiesl as we speak and are putting people's health at risk.

Perhaps that's why Celiva and alchemist have acquired selective reading and comprehension malfunctions.

If posters continue to search and avoid for the real truth about biodiesel and human health I will continue to point that out!

Celivia, biofuel people really worry about land clearing, or using food cropping areas for a larger return. Globalisation is what'll cause this to happen, corporate control's our worst enemy.

We need to cap world population, more and more people have access to machinery, cars and consumer goods, needing more fuel. Ideally each country should provide their own energy and food requirements, then they'd have to work better with the land, as they did before the industrial revolution.

Butanol made from biomass or sugars is a better petrol replacement than ethanol, it's a 4 carbon alcohol, so can be it's used without modifications, this link may help.

http://www.butanol.com/

The problem, the world faces, is we don't have many options, increasingly fossil oil will become dearer and more controlled. We need new transport technologies, based on sustainable supplies.

We don't know why oils in the earth, or gas. It could be part of the planets dampening hydraulic system, keeping the plates moving smoothly. If that's the case, we may be draining the lubricants and end up with massive continent changing earthquakes. This planet has been evolving for millions of years, it may have developed these oil reserviors for stabalising erratic plate and land movements. Now we may return to big cotinental changing quakes, instead of gentle sliding ones.

We've come along way technologically, but we're not using it sensibly, the throw away consumer society we've created is to blame. We don't need economic and population growth, we need technological progress and economic sustainability.

I don't know Kaeps problem, it appears a typical psychopathic outburst. Irrational, bordering on panic, unsustainable deluded claims and the desperate need for the the last word, even if its bizarre.

Currently we're working on building an enclosed system, you drop your feed stock in and outcomes biodiesel from one tap, and butanol from another. The glycerine is distilled to recover the butanol, (ethanol or Methanol), leaving a pure safe cleaning agent.

The waste products brilliant compost. You'll find more danger from the products in your super market than from biofuels, as they aren't marked poison or toxic

Alchemist's problem: it appears as a typical psychopathic outburst. Irrational, bordering on panic, unsustainable deluded claims and the desperate need for the the last word, even if its bizarre.

His own words tell of this problem, Res Ipsa Loquitur:
""We don't know why oils in the earth, or gas. It could be part of the planets dampening hydraulic system, keeping the plates moving smoothly. If that's the case, we may be draining the lubricants and end up with massive continent changing earthquakes.""

In the meantime, the worst offenders of home-brew-biodiesel, the truckies, will be coming home to their children .. to find ... Leukaemia and other autoimmune diseases invading their lives.
And it won't take long

KAEP

"In the meantime, the worst offenders of home-brew-biodiesel, the truckies, will be coming home to their children .. to find ... Leukaemia and other autoimmune diseases invading their lives."

You have absolutely no evidence for making such a statement, this diminishes your credibility even more. Do you really need to invent "facts" to bolster your argument - disgraceful.

Yes I do have Leukeamia and autoimmune disease.

KAEP,
I did give your article attention but I don’t want to change my opinion on the basis of just one article.
If you give me a link to another article that backs up your opinion I will read that as well- but telling me that the one article you presented is all we need to read- hmmm, I can decide for myself how many articles I need to read.
It seems to do it for you, but for me just one article is not convincing enough if there are stacks of other articles discussing the opposite view.
I do like differing opinions, but facts are important to me in forming an opinion.

Anyway, to get on with the discussion, now that we know that you are opposed to biodiesel, what is in your opinion a more appealing solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the nuclear and the biodiesel options and why?

Alchemist,
thanks for the butanol link. Good luck with your butanol/biodiesel system, I like the idea that there’s an environmentally safe cleaning agent as a by-product. Would that be suitable to make your own soap as well?

Madden,

Talk about disgraceful. You're the lowest.

You can't win the argument on facts so you present your irrelevant medical history to bolster your IGNORANCE.

Tell me you are a doctor and I'll listen ... maybe.

In the meantime John Howard's biodiesel foray or 'new-ethanol' gambol will do a lot more than melt our carby gaskets I can tell you.

Howard lies about ethanol introduction, kids overboard, workplace relations, the Snowy, Costello, AWB etc etc. He lies to us through his phoney media monopolies that he is the best man for PM when everyone thinks he's a jerk and we are supposed to believe this crap about predominant home brew biodiesel not poisoning our children.

Number one, I can smell the sh$t in the air of a morning, its sickening and its getting worse by the day.

Two, the nature of the smell suggests the main pollutant is aerosolised fat, a polutant form that can penetrate deep lung alveloi spaces.
That means these fats can attach directly to blood corpuscles. White cells will be summoned to interract. That in turn means a load on human immune systems. Sydney is by far the worst affected so some of those immune systems out there in overcrowded, underserved Iemmaland are going to break down. Especially those of children under six years of age whose immune systems are still in training.

Unfortunately for NSW labor politicians, their little Ghibellinettos are just as likely to get Leukaemia as the next child.
So they better do something to outlaw the biodiesel home brewers now. Since that is logistically impossible they had better ban biodiesel in NSW. And since their unsustainable plans for housing 100,000 extra people and CARS in Sydney every year will exacerbate fuel prices and supply they had better rethink that ill advised avarice as well.

The onset of this disease is swift and once cases start hitting the kids' wards there will be an uproar. Its only a matter of time now.

I will be presenting papers to back up these views as time becomes available.

(apologies to others for straying off topic but I must set KAEP straight).

Your hypothesis about "aerosolised fat" has no credibility, leukaemia is caused by damage to DNA (in my case del 13q 14.3) and no environmental factor has been proven to cause this damage (except for ionising radiation at chernobyl levels).

Benzene has been linked but a recent 30 year study of Australian refinery workers showed no corelation (in fact lung cancer rates were significantly lower - probably due to not smoking around petrol).

Are you trying to tell me that fats attach themselves to red blood cells? or that the immune system, B-lymphocytes T-lymphocytes Natural Killer cells etc fail because of these fats? Crap both ways I'm sorry.

If you can show me evidence that these fats damage DNA and the process of how this occurs then you may have some credibility but you cannot and thus have no credibility.

Leukaemias are a genetic disease, these are the facts, if you do not have the damaged DNA you do not get Leukaemia.

No I am not a doctor, but I "talk" to world experts on a daily basis. Currently I am involved in raising US$120,000 to study Epstein Bar Virus in leukeamia a study to be conducted by The Mayo Clinic.(EBV has been shown to permanently damage CD8+ T Cells, it is these T Cells that kill defective, cancerous cells before they can proliferate) I would not waste money on aerosolised fat.

I look forward to reading the papers you cite, who wrote them? I am sure I will find no scientific facts to support your point of view.

Steve, I believe Kaep has made his situation eminently clear, his posts and supporting facts, speak for themselves.

This is an interesting site, its give a few more facts and a neat peak oil meter. Not sure about its veracity, but the rate of consumption is interesting.

http://www.etruk.co.uk/html/useful_facts.htm

Celivia, the glycerine makes excellent soap, I use it straight, sometime with some alovera or eucalyptus oil. You can refine it even further but its not worth the effort. The grey water doesn't harm your garden and washes clothes really well (squeeze lemon) and they come out soft. Different crops provide different glycerine.

I don't see biofuels as the whole solution, we may be near a new form of propulsion. Along with other energy sources, we'll go forward environmentally and technologically. It'll only be a couple of years before we have non degrading electrical storage and the new solar cell technology means much cheaper better systems.

http://www.hydrogen.asn.au/SolarBall-Solar-Energy.htm

http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

I believe the cells and batteries are derived from the ones made for the Mars rovers, developed from the experimental ones, on the two voyager space craft still sending back info after 30 years and so far from the sun, it looks like another star and now outside our solar system.

If we can only get rid of the vested interest politics from our future, we may have a good chance of getting through these coming changes. As for smell, again different feed stock gives different smells. But I prefer the slight wisp of fish and chips, or even a barbie, than fine particle saturated petro/diesel any day. If you live in a city, I doubt you'd notice a vehicle on biodiesel through the toxic soup on our roads.

Alchemist:"If we can only get rid of the vested interest politics from our future, we have a chance of getting through these changes"

What this individual really means is: If we can only get rid of the truth from our future, vested interest politics may have a good chance of getting through these coming changes and making a FORTUNE before the electors realise what's goin' on.

And Madden: Don't worry about REALITY. Its so clear you have already made up your mind and your bed.

Your statement: " I am sure I will find no scientific facts to support your point of view" is pure neanderthal IGNORANCE.
The rest of us will be watching the hospital statistics. It won't be long before we see significant changes in Leukaemia admissions if Iemma doesn't do something about home-brew-biodiesel in NSW.

As far as the rest of Australia is concerned, I don't really care because Canberra has dumped NSW with almost its total immigration burden and then fiscally and morally turned its back on us.

Oh sure, NATIONALLY averaged economic stats make immigration look marginaly in the black, but NSW (particularly rural NSW ) is going 'under' with this unjust and unfair burden. and with a NSW State Labor Government all too willing to trade in post ministerial jobs at the expense of good governance.

And Celivia:

the alternative is to use Fischer-Tropsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process) to make $35-$55 a barrel synthetic fuels from plentiful coal and other carbon rich sources.
We will be lucky if serious technology becomes available for high-energy-density, high-online-capacity alternatives in the next 20 years. Oil companies aided by US and Saudi governments have hogged technology to sustain their humungous monopolies and profits and now we are all going to pay for that by having to wear fossil fuels till the lost research opportunities are regained.

But Australia simply has to solve the 'mid east dependence' security problem first. by large investment in F-T. Without security concerns arising from fuel shortages and suborn mid-east influences we have a chance to be forerunners in new fuel technology research for the entire world.

One significant issue with making biodiesel from waste cooking oil is simply that it does not scale. There is only so much waste oil around.

My attention was drawn to this report into producing biodiesel from algae. It dates from 1998.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

It includes the comment "Even with aggressive assumptions about biological productivity, we project costs for biodiesel which are two times higher than current petroleum diesel fuel costs."

However, as I said, that was 1998. Crude oil prices have risen considerably, so this technology must be that much closer to being economic. At the very least, it must represent a cap on how high diesel prices can go.

My present thinking is that my next car will be diesel powered.

Sylvia.

KAEP

While I wait for your papers to support your claims can you answer me a simple question?

How many children (make it people under 20 to keep it simple for you) living in Sydney are diagnosed with leukaemia each year and what percentage increase do you accept for cases increasing?

A hint "In the United States, there were 1,490 children under the age of 20 diagnosed with leukemia from 1998-2002" (SEER Figures)

Kaep

Here is a url for diy biodiesel production.
[http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html]
The site also provides useful information on diesel engines and fuels, and provides technical arguments as to why diesels have the potential to be far less polluting. Your condemnation of home brewers, who would account for a small fraction of a percent of diesel fuel burnt, is out of proportion. It reminds me of the drongoes who regularly pop up to blame the Greenies for every policy failure. The unfortunate truth is that diesel engines are so robust that they can burn fuels of poor quality and still outlast petrol engines by a large margin. Because of this very poor refinement standards have been permitted to the detriment of public health.

KAEP, thanks, I had a look at that Fischer-Tropsch information. Interesting to read something about this process, and there is plenty of coal available- but it’s not an appealing alternative solution to me because this product does nothing for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions- unless I’ve missed something?

Fester, the link didn’t work, so I went to http://journeytoforever.org/edu.html#biofuel first and went to the ‘make’ link from that home page. Good site! It’s great that schools participate at this level. It seems to a be simple and safe enough process to enable school kids to have a hands-on experience at making biodiesel.

And here is a site for another biofuel production method that claims to be able to convert any carbon based feedstock to oil, gas, water and a mineral extract:

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829

HOME BREW Biodiesel which is being subsidised by Federal and state governments is starting to cause more and more widespread insidious diseases in children, the elderly and the infirmed. It will also deteriorate the health of normal adults over time.

Sydney hospital denies reports of a deadly superbug, after five babies were found with lesions:.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/babies-dont-have-superbug-hospital/2006/09/12/1157826913689.html

Sydney's-polluted-air-killing-hundreds:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Sydneys-polluted-air-killing-hundreds/2006/09/11/1157826879240.html

Meanwhile state and federal agencies have obviously been told to 'put a lid' on the situation. However thaey can't do this forever and their pandora's box of worms is about to bust out all over cities like Sydney.You can easily smell the slight trace of fish and chip shop residue all over Sydney now, especially around 5am and 11pm at night.

My suggestion when the situation goes hot? Talk to Prof. Doherty. This is what he got the Nobel prize for. The relationship between deep lung penetration with foreign substances including fine oily mists from biodiesel that now pervades sydney's air, attach to red blood cells causing poly discrasias and supporting every airborne disease from Menigococcol to Legionaires. Some of those blood discrsias will inevitably mutate into Leukaemia if this nonsense is not dealt with promptly.

Politicians kids are every bit at risk as any other children.