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