Ten percent ethanol in petrol is a typically stupid decision from our ghastly state government. Do they not realise that there is already an acute grain shortage here? Export feedlots have halved the time they grain feed cattle, which will probably affect quality and therefore markets, the price of grain has gone through the roof, and although grass feeding cattle to market-readiness is feasible in a few lucky areas there is also an acute shortage of grass across the state, due to the drought (or climate change).

At a time when rising living standards in Asia are creating more demand for animal protein, the clueless Iemmaa gang are going to stuff up an export industry by sending grain up in smoke.

There is an obvious commonality of thinking in this article and the recent article by Peter Ridd in which he refered to burning food to run a Toorak tank. The whole idea is revolting. I can just about imagine that there might be a case for examining the production of ethanol from sugar cane because that crop produces a lower level food and is a much more efficient producer of energy of one form or another, be it fuel for humans, ethanol or co-generation of electricity. However even for sugar a really sound analysis of a sort of energy equation for the crop would be needed. By that I mean that the total energy costs of producing the ethanol must be compared with the energy output. Fertilisers, farm machinery production and running, cane hauling energy use and others need to be compared with the energy output. Certainly it will be essential that mills and mill areas are rationalised to reduce the energy costs of transport of cane to the mill(s). Nevertheless, sugar cane is a possible source of energy. Corn is not. Scrap the idea NSW.

There are so many things wrong with turning large areas of arable land over to fuel that one wonders if there is yet another person with a fat chequebook open in the state of NSW.

There is nothing inherently wrong with biofuels or ethanol except that we do not have a globally sustainable population that would afford this level of land use to fuel.

What about introducing incentives for electric vehicles? Modern technology allows a 300km range between charge-ups which could make a huge impact on city commuting. Combine this with incentives for solar and we are getting somewhere. Pollution free transport for the most congested cities.

Bio-fuels, as with wind and solar, are looking at the energy supply versus demand problem from the wrong end of the telescope.

Western society is fixated on supply solutions.

High-minded renewable energy enthusiasts suffer from the same delusions, although they mean well.

In the case of bio-fuels and nuclear power, these don't even deliver over and above their energy consumption (and other risks).

In the case of solar and wind, these would be okay but totally puny when looking at the rapidly growing energy consumption patterns we refuse to deal with. So these are not a solution either, just a fairly pathetic paliative.

Not until we primarily focus on the demand side of the equation can we start to deal with the energy crises that are upon us. I mean really focus, not as an aside or as an afterthought. Not in the shadow of supply-side options.

Until we do that, bio-fuels, wind, solar, geo-thermal...... are a smokescreen for a society that simply does not want to confront the reality that is staring us all in the face.

Before any government dictates the amount of ethanol they must do plent of research. I was using E10, 4 tanks to 1 of unleaded as advised by the "experts". After about 4 months we were having trouble hot starting the car took it back to distributor was advised to stop using E10. Some 6 months later still having problems. Outcome: government be it Federal or State must research the use of ethanol not only it has an adverse effect on the engine but long term it will be using vital agricultural country to feed the monster. I say the Federal Government must bite the bullet to come up with an alternate to fossel fuels but not at the cost of food production.

If the NSW government was fair dinkum, it would mandate all its vehicles from 2010 should be hybrid or all electric cars. By 2015 all its vehicles should be all electric.

This decision shows contempt for those battlers facing soaring food prices. The UN has declared bio-feuls a crime against humanity. Iemma should be hauled before the courts.

I am curious about the way ethanol is priced when used in E10.
The practice has been to price the energy from the ethanol at the same marginal price as the petrol it replaces, currently around 4.5 cents per megajoule (ULP at AUD$1.44/L).
A commodity would normally be priced similarly to the cheapest available alternative. Natural gas is an alternative to petrol and has a retail price in Australia of 1.5 cents per megajoule.

Politicians like to be seen as doing something that will raise their popularity. However, are such blunders entirely their fault?
Science did pretty good job in convincing general public about dangers of global warming. However, when it comes to solutions, we are mute. I have outlined a solution at http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20083004-17248.html , but many seem to be waiting for funds. And funds are allocated by politicians under pressure of general public. Vicious circle, isn’t it?
We cannot wait for politicians to drop few coins into our hats. We have to start thinking about solutions. And we must present our solutions to general public in a simple way everybody will understand. Only then doors to funds will open.

If only ethanol were made from sugar cane. It's not as if there's a shortage of the stuff. Also, I've never heard of anyone going hungry because they missed out on sugar.

Well, I have only read up to para 3 and wonder about this:-
"Food and he Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in their latest data estimates that 100 million tonnes of grain or 1/20th of world production was converted to ethanol worldwide in 2007-2008."
I looked at my calendar? Yep still 2008. Spring in N hemisphere. Does the FAO have a TARDIS?
In fact I can't find the FAO figures at all. A reference would be nice.
I did find a very reasoned conversation about all the factors influencing would food prices here
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:-LXw458-edYJ:www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/docs/SRRTFnotefoodcrisis.pdf+Food+and+Agricultural+Organization+(FAO)+estimates+grain+ethanol+worldwide+in+2007-2008.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au&client=firefox-a
These include
* Word bank strictures /rules on developing countries/economies.
* European Japanese, Korean, American and Australian farm subsidies.
* The drought in places like Australia
* Poor harvests in Europe.
* Disease/insects (EG 50% reduction in Vietnam's rice crop)
* Stock exchange speculation on food futures
* War and other conflicts
* The world population increases by some 75 million persons each year
* increased logistical & production costs linked to the price of oil.
* Changes in diet (Chinese eating much more meat, for each calorie of beef to be produced,we need 9 calories of plants ; and we need 4.5 calories of plants to produce one calorie of milk or egg.)
* Estimates that, 16% of the land currently under cultivation is threatened by exhaustion.
* Soil degredation
* Climate change.
* Hoarding of food reserves/speculation.
* Import tariffs.
O yes and
* Biofuels (especially the silly USA system) Since 2004, the total increase in the production of corn in the United States has gone to bioethanol. . . .distinctions should be drawn between different sources of agrofuels, some of which represent a more serious threat to food security than others, and some of which may have an underestimated potential.(Like pyrolysis of fuel from waste)
It would be interesting to know how much of the US crop goes to Whiskey, bourbon and other alcoholic drinks.