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)