The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Transport fuels shortage? Gen2 biofuels are a real prospect for Australia > Comments

Transport fuels shortage? Gen2 biofuels are a real prospect for Australia : Comments

By Robin Batterham, published 17/11/2008

With the next generation of biofuels, where non-food resources dominate, Australia may be well situated to establish a thriving industry.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I wonder if the slow progress of biofuel expansion is due to the hangup with liquids when perhaps gas is the way to go. We know that conventional biodiesel and ethanol cannot possibly replace current levels of petro-fuel usage. My feeling is that if algae based fuel was a goer it would have progressed further by now. I also wonder if Gunns Ltd have considered Fischer-Tropsch biomass-to-liquids as an alternative to paper pulp from woodchips, perhaps leaving out old growth forests as a wood source. The leader here seems to be Choren Industries jointly owned by Shell and VW.

However in Europe and Scandinavia buses and trains run on fermentation biomethane (sewer gas) though that is now in short supply. Methane can also be made from garbage or any biowaste via gasification followed by catalytic conversion. While the net energy is low the mainly-methane syngas can be blended with natural gas, biomethane and coal seam gas. Therefore I suggest the future of biofuel is a kind of compressed universal gas mainly consisting of methane.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 17 November 2008 8:56:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ATSE and Robin Batterham should be commended for making such a reasoned contribution to the energy debate. I share their concerns for the Net Energy Alalysis/EROI of Gen1 biofuels. For more on that matter, I refer readers to my Opinion Online article of 27 November.
Posted by Jedimaster, Monday, 17 November 2008 9:56:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Biofuels are not sustainable where wastes (containing e.g. phosphorous that is becoming limited in supply) are not recycled back to the land (or growth medium) after energy extraction. For this reason harvesting biomass from "marginal" land without fertilizer inputs is not sustainable in the longer term. Biogas and algal farming (with recycling) may be viable but we had better get a hurry on since the world appears to be rapidly approaching the 5:1 EROEI energy cliff below which life as we know it may be unsustainable:
http://eroi.theoildrum.com/node/4762
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 11:27:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For our future transport fuels and greenhouse gas abatement we must make second generation biofuels a reality or at least give it our best shot.
The suggestion put forward in this article is a step in the right direction.

However there is a closely related issue of immediate concern. The NSW Government is this minute looking at mandating an E10 in NSW which will have to be filled by the conversion of grain to ethanol at a cost to the Federal taxpayer of about $230 million per year.
Under current policy the Federal Government is facilitating the establishment of this first generation grain ethanol industry.

If allowed to proceed, an unstainable, uneconomic grain ethanol industry will soak up subsidies which could be put toward second generation biofuel research and development.

There are advocates of grain ethanol in government who would have us believe that waste feedstock is available to produce this quantity of ethanol without impacting food production.Tony Kelly MLC tells us that 'ethanol is a byproduct from the manufacture of distillers grain'.With 70 percent of the grain used for much higher valued ethanol this is spin at its worse. The Queensland Government suggests that the sorghum to be used to produce ethanol at Dalby is 'just cattle feed', not realising that the other food crops could have been grown instead of the sorghum.

These people are redefining waste feedstock for the production of first generation ethanol, either deliberately or through ignorance, in order to divorce a grain ethanol industry from it's impact on food production.

If they are successful in hoodwinking our policy makers we will find ourselves with a heavily subsidised, uneconomic, unsustainable grain ethanol industry with unreliable feedstock supply.
Such an industry will be an anchor on our efforts to bring second generation biofuels on line
Posted by Goeff, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 2:37:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
geoff,

"The Queensland Government suggests that the sorghum to be used to produce ethanol at Dalby is 'just cattle feed', not realising that the other food crops could have been grown instead of the sorghum."

If the other crops are equally or more profitable, then yes, other crops will be grown. But what are they, and why aren't they already being grown? Grain prices have collapsed to levels verging on loss making, half the value they were last year, and yet you wish to perpetuate these low levels?
The greatest threat to ongoing food production is low prices, prices that curb investment in growing crops, R&D spending, fertiliser etc. Surely you must be aware US corn exports actually increased despite the ethanol boom. Decent prices - more production. And overseas customers were still buying.
http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/id102-33208/us_corn_exports_to_hit_a_new_record.html

Now I realise that Australia is in no immediate danger of running short of food and that our cheap grains are exported in bulk for others benefit, but somewhere along the line Australia must get a share. Either in direct jobs from profitable farming, biofuel industries or heaven forbid the farmer him/herself.
Our terms of trade cannot be helped selling cheap grain at little more than cost and then importing oil - money going to already wealthy oil producers. At a time when jobs and home grown industry are sorely needed.

$230 Million in subsidies? I suspect most of that is forgone excise, being phased out starting 2011. Not really taxpayers money being handed out, but it is an investment that will bring in future excise, without exporting our wealth to oil rich nations.
Incidently why is govt "subsidising" LPG through low excise and even paying for car conversions, and subsidising new factory LPG car purchases. A conversion scheme alone reportedly worth over $500 million alone.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23631872-5001021,00.html

"Australia’s large reserves of petroleum gas also make a case for the conversion subsidy as a stabilising measure, enhancing national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil supplies"
http://www.carcentral.com.au/200807182277/government/lpg-protected-from-upcoming-emissions-trading-scheme-price-hikes.html

Why not equal enthusiam for biofuels and farmers as for further fossil fuel burning by the LPG industry.
Posted by rojo, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 10:18:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The greatest threat to ongoing food production is low prices,*

Ah, smart man Rojo, you understand agriculture, many don't.

Farmers are not going to take the risks of growing crops, if
expected to grow them at a loss. Mining the soil to grow them,
is not sustainable either. Farmers need to be able to replace
nutrients removed and that costs money for fertilisers etc.

If Geoff and others want more cheap food for the world's poor,
they are free to use taxpayers dollars to buy that food for the poor.

The very reason that there was a wheat shortage last year, was
not because we could not have grown more wheat, but because of
low prices the year before, which hardly made it worth bothering
to grow the stuff. Next of course we had a shortage.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 7:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy