I track my consumption vs. kilometres on a regular basis and noticed that I am now using about 5% more fuel per kilometre than earlier this year.

I was going to get my car serviced when I realised that the drop in efficiency corresponded closely with the abolition of the regular unleaded petrol. A small bit of reading revealed that the energy value of ethanol is much lower than that of regular petrol.

What irritates me is that the NSW government while trying to promote eco friendly fuel is still taxing the ethanol at a similar rate per litre as normal petrol. To be fair to the drivers, this tax should be based on calorific value so as to reflect how far the drivers can go per litre.

As it stands, the NSW profits from forcing the consumption of less energetic fuel when drivers use more to get the same distance.

Personally i changed to premium. I have found that i get better economy that way and it covers the extra cost of purchasing the premium.
Either way you are paying the same or maybe a little bit more, but what did we expect, this is government.

IMHO, anyone who chooses to use an ethanol blended fuel in their petrol designed engine, has more money then brains.
Of course you will use MORE fuel then running just on pure petrol as you've discovered, it's all about calorific content.
This idea of enthanol has only one objective, and that is to SUBSIDISE the sugar industry of NSW and QLD.
Utilising ethanol for fuel does not benefit the Environment in any way, in fact I strongly suspect the OPPOSITE is true in the manufacturing of the product.
IF, our Govt was really serious, regarding the environment, they'd legislate every Australian manufactured car come off the assembly line fitted to run on COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS, something of which we have in abundance and does not effect the evironment as does Dino fuel or manufactured fuels like ethanol.
Instead we practicly give the stuff away and allow International Corporations to make squillions of dollars out of it and when it's all gone, Australians will have nought.

Yes Shadow Minister, I understand that the lower price of E10 fuel is more than offset by the lower calorific value of ethanol compared to regular unleaded petrol. So it is more efficient to just use the more expensive old regular unleaded stuff or perhaps the premium stuff.

This being the case, of course our government should be taxing ethanol or ethanol blended fuels at a considerably lower rate.

Maybe itchyvet is right – we should be converting to LNG instead.

Whatever the case, we should be weaning ourselves off of our addiction to oil with great urgency, not so much for climate change reasons as for the reason that our society is precariously dependent on oil and prone to major upheaval if the price rises significantly, let alone if supplies become short.

A couple of comments on the discussion so far.
Ethanol is not taxed as petrol is. The Federal Government subsidises it's production with an excise rebate, 38c/litre before the Biudget, now 25c/litre.If Tony Windsor has his way this subsidy will revert to 38c/litre. Allowing for the lesser energy content of ethanol, 38c/litre means we, the taxpayers, at 38c/litre, are paying 57c/litre to replace one litre of petrol.
The other point is the feedstock for the ethanol. It is mainly grain. The Dalby grain ethanol plant uses 220000 tonnes of grain per year and Manildra at Nowra produces the ethanol mostly from grain and flour.
Grain is a poor feedstock, much less economic and environmentally friendly than sugar cane, with far greater impact on our domestic and global food supplies. The supply of grain feedstock from our variable harvests cannot be married to a fixed demand of mandated ethanol use.
Ethanol subsidisation must be based on differentiated feedstock, with grain ethanol not included.

I was under the impression that the calorific difference of ethanol is around 30% less, so in a 10% mix the theoretical difference would be about 3%. However the octane rating of the blend is higher, and ethanol being an "oxygenator" the difference in performance may not be at all apparent. If the car engine isn't worn that is, as good compression is needed to extract benefit from the higher octane rating.

As to feedstocks, while I agree mandated ethanol could skew grain prices and I too think ethanol should stand on it's own feet, farmers should not be prevented from getting the best return they can for their crops. Farmers are in the energy conversion business and should be rewarded accordingly.

Not forgeting distillers grains, where half(from memory) of the feed value still exists at the end of the process.

Has anyone stopped to think about the environmental damage from cane farming? For many years the federal Department of Primary Industry tried to encourage can farmers to diversify into exotic fruits and nuts that were even more profitable and didn't harm the rivers through excessive nitrogen run-off.

The feds have continually offered money and the resources of DPI and CSIRO to get the cane farmers established in new crops. Habit and being propped up by the short-sighted LNP prevent change.

The Greens of course have no interest unless it pays off with a sensationalist headline to maintain their image of green militancy while they run with their more important social policies. The Greens are absolutely clueless and uninterested in practical, lasting solutions.

As for E10 fuel, we wouldn't even run a small two-stroke outboard on it through concern that it might damage the fuel pump and system. Who wants to be stranded on the water? On land, who wants an expensive engine damaged where the warranty might well not be honoured for using unsuitable fuel (see the handbook)? What are you going to do, lie to the motor dealer who can easily see the damage to seals and metallic surfaces?

Don't worry about it, Today Tonight just told me that we will have Hydrogen powered fuel cell cars very soon. All the car makers are furiously working to bring this new technology to us as fast as possible. They run on water you know? And they make no pollution, in fact they turn water to hydrogen and then convert the hydrogen into electricity and the waste product is again water. Simply marvelous why has it taken so long?

We are all so lucky to have a show like Today Tonight which push the boundaries and encourage our leaders to take note of emerging technologies such as Hydrogen. I've never seen them speak of ethanol so it must be a scam. Hydrogen is the future.

Yes raw Mustar, hydrogen has been promised for some time but it still
cannot get past the difficulty of making it.
The coal mine to electricity to hydrogen generator to fuel cell to
motor to wheels is far too inefficient.
The other way is a by product of oil refining or from natural gas.

That way has a priority problem as you might as well use the petrol direct.

On top of that the cost of fitting out all service stations to handle
hydrogen is prohibitive and as an aside you need six to eight times
the number of tankers to deliver it.
Also it is illegal to park a hydrogen car in an underground car park.
Also workshops need to have modified roofs.

It looks to me as if there has been some pressure from the sugar industry to force ethanol onto the market despite consumer demand.

Normally that's not a problem but to then remove the choice of having ethanol in your fuel or paying even more for another product that exceeds your requirements smacks of market manipulation.

How would you feel about having 10% more water added to say, your beer, in return for a similar reduction in price but with the removal of the unadulterated product from the market?

Hi Bazz.

Yes, Hydrogen is a crockaboloney just like ethanol, it just doesn't make any sense at all. I think the reason behind ethanol is to delude people into thinking they - the poly-ticks are doing something. As far as Hydrogen goes I just don't understand the reason behind it all. It's like pulling your billy-cart 3k's up a hill so you can roll back down to the shop which is 1k down the hill from where you started. Only a looney would suggest such nonsense!

Cornflower, you do talk so much of it sometimes.

To start with, farmers, [even sugar farmers], do not make so much that they can afford to pump fertilizer into anything but their crops. I suppose you would be surprised to learn that many of them use costly, labour intensive underground fertilizer injection, to try to make sure very little of their expensive fertilizer is wasted.

I suppose you know that much cane is grown in light poor sandy coastal country that is basically useless to man or beast, native or exotic, without a great deal of input. This would be ideal country for high value crops, wouldn't it?

I suppose you know all about the amount of drainage work that goes into making a lot of otherwise sour useless bog country produce cane. You would know of course that even cane can not survive in some years when water logging is impossible to prevent. Just the place for tree crops that take years of establishment before producing, & don't like wet feet.

Then you would know that cane is a one man crop. One where a bloke can work his guts out for 6 months & get an income, with no, or very little, outside labour required, apart from a bit of short term work by specialist contractors.

You would know all about the tens of thousands of tons of high value high labour intensive at harvest crops that are lost each year for want of harvest labour. Now that's a good way to go broke.

Perhaps you could tell me why your DPI, & CSIRO could not come up with anything that could be grown profitably on all that land around Nambour, thrown into disuse when their sugar mill closed.

While you're at it, would you tell that idiot Beattie that it was not high value cropping land. It is not even viable for grazing, as it will not grow grass profitable. It would have made a lovely housing estate, but I don't suppose that would have pleased any Labor mates would it?

As someone said, sugar cane is not used for ethanol.
They are making it from wheat grain and this seems to me to be sacrilege.
People are going hungry because they cannot afford bread and we are
burning it in our engines !

Sugar cane appears to be the best for making ethanol as Brazil has found.
I wonder if that is why China has bought up the sugar industry in Australia ?
China will make ethanol for their cars while we ride push bikes !
Well the natives will not be able to afford cars anyway so the
Chinese bosses will tell their Beijing bosses.

It may be of interest that the Gillard/ Windsor ethanol deal has seen the light of day. It took $440 million of extra subsidy for ethanol to get Windsor into the Labor camp.A big portion of this will end up in the two grain ethanol producer's pockets.
So we taxpayers and paying big time for the conversion of grain to ethanol, food for fuel we don't really need.
What happens if there is a few hiccups in world grain production such as the current Russian drought? Of course!! We can outbid third world countries for the grain for our cars.
Grain ethanol---utter stupidity.

By the way, distillers grain byproduct is just a distraction. Seventy percent of grain is starch and that is what is turned into ethanol. The tonnage of grain starch is the relavent figure. If no sugar cane,it takes about one million tonnes of grain starch to fill the NSW E10 mandate, about twenty five percent of an average NSW cereal grain harvest. Utter stupidity with our variable harvests.

Hasbeen,

You need to get up to speed with publications by the research people in Sustainable Ecosystems, CSIRO, for a start. They have done work specifically on that area.

Bazz,

China is in partnership with Australia to breed cane with higher energy and suitable for dry areas.

We still have many small holdings based on the 'one family' farm, but many farmers are aged 60+.

It should be noted that grain for ethanol is primarily low protein grain, because starch content is higher percentage wise.

What do we do now with low protein grains? Mostly feed them to livestock at a typical feed conversion ratio of 6:1 to provide marbled beef to discerning customers. Not for ensuring that poor bellies are full.

The distillers grains constitute 30% of the original source by weight, yet retains the protein and most nutrients. The Distillers grains become a high protein feed source, at approx 30-40% protein compared to the original 10% in the grain.
You can correct me, but my assumption is that we consume meat more for the protein satisfaction than the fat.


The variability of our harvests is a key reason why we should have ethanol facilities, too often the price of grain has fallen below the cost of production and fair energy value. The variability also a key reason not to keep an ethanol mandate.

Sorghum, a target feedstock for grain ethanol, typically sells at below $200/tonne, and only five years ago was $125. Yet will produce 400 litres of ethanol, and still preserve some feed value in distillers grains. In some years the feedstock for 400 L of ethanol could be as low as 100$ net of distillers grains, 25 cents/litre. Even at the current $200/tonne for sorghum it's less than 40c.

It should come down to the best financial result for NSW, exporting less grainfed beef or reducing petroleum imports?

Rojo,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
If as you say it is a partial win win situation then that puts a
different slant on it.
Has anyone done an EROEI study on it ?

Ther must be a lot of transport involved.

Rojo,
I just read an article on the proposal to make ethanol from waste.
However in a energy depleted world will there be enough waste to feed
such a plant.

http://tinyurl.com/24nffpa

Will take you to the article.
I note that Nestle is opposed to using food to make ethanol.

Rojo, I appreciate your comments and “It should come down to the best financial result for NSW, exporting less grainfed beef or reducing petroleum imports?” is valid. I am no fan of lotfeeding. However financial is the operative word. Grain ethanol is heavily subsidized and import protected, increased further by Windsor’s deal and will remain so. Where is the financial gain for NSW grain ethanol versus feedlotting.. You cannot say that because the Federal taxpayer is footing the bill, NSW gains.

With respect to low protein grain, such grain is grown, in most cases, in lieu of higher quality food grade grain. Thus the use of low protein grain in either a feedlot or ethanol plant impacts the supply of food for human consumption, ethanol to a greater extent than feedlotting.(1:6)

We agree that variability of our cereal grain harvests is the key factor in discussing the merits or otherwise of a grain ethanol industry.
The grain grower will receive no more than export parity price when there is an exportable surplus, why would a grain ethanol plant pay more? So having a domestic grain ethanol industry will make no difference to the grain grower
In times of poor harvests and domestic shortage grain prices rise to import parity. Then the ethanol producer cannot compete with oil, exporting and import competing grain end users cannot compete in the market either. If total grain used for feedlotting and ethanol increases with the development of a grain ethanol industry, these import parity situations become more frequent with the obvious impact on existing rural businesses.

Comment on the economics of the Dalby grain ethanol plant to follow after the grandkids leave.

When ethanol is made from grain the grain does not disappear. The resultant grain is of higher food value than before. Animals fed on grain alone will starve. Feedlotts are fed on paletized foods containing all sorts of natural foods, of which modified grain is a small part.

A quick look at the economics of a grain ethanol plant such a the one at Dalby shows the following.
With unleaded retailing for say $1.20/litre, ethanol with two thirds the energy is worth $0.80c/l. Allowing $0.20 c/l freight and retailing costs, we could say that unleaded ex refinery is worth $0.80c/l and ethanol ex Dalby $0.60c/l.
There is an excise to be paid to the Government on unleaded petrol of $0.38c/l with the excise prorata energy content of $0.25c/l on the ethanol currently rebated. This is the subsidy for the conversion of the grain to ethanol.
It is a nonsense to discuss the economics of grain ethanol while including the subsidy so the excise must be deducted from unleaded and ethanol to get ex plant prices of $0.62c/l unleaded and $0.35c/l ethanol.
In converting grain to ethanol, the starch, 70%, is used for ethanol. The remaining 30% is the distillers grain. This distillers grain is worth about the same as whole grain to the feedlotter so, taking Rojo's $200/tonne sorghum, we can see that the starch portion of that tonne, making 400 litres ethanol is worth $140 making the feedstock costs of this ethanol $0.35c/litre.

In summary, the real price received for ethanol only covers the cost of the grain, delivered weighbridge at the Dalby plant.

It is little wonder that the Dalby grain ethanol plant is reported as being under administration and Tony Windsor made a deal with labor to increase even further the subsidisation of ethanol production.

Bazz, ethanol doesn't have a high EROEI, something like 1.67 to 1. biodiesel is much better at 3 to 1. Most Australian and US cars are petrol so ethanol is the biofuel in vogue. I'm not sure how the energy content of the grain, and byproducts, is taken into account.
Transportation is part of the equation whether grain heads to port or factory.

Geoff, a barrel of crude oil costs about $80. 50 cents a litre, before transport, refining, more transport, and retailing. Thats not taking into account not all of the barrel is able to be distilled into usable fuel.

I don't see why ethanol should be treated any less favorably than LPG which has no excise. let alone LPG conversion subsidy.

The eastern states are approaching a point of nil grain export, having to accept export parity prices may become the exception rather than the norm.

Its all in the chemistry, specifically the number of carbon bonds. The bigger question, is what is the objective of ethanol blending? If its just the warm fuzzy you get from using words like "sustainable" and "renewable", maybe take a quick look at the environmental problems associated with Brazil's ethanol. If it is the warm fuzzy from helping the environment, paying extra for premium will help more (more complete combustion). If it is to help our struggling sugar farmers, take a quick look at the average farm and count all the new landcruisers.
Some people reckon ethanol cleans their fuel injectors, just as many will say it attracts water and corrosion. My opinion would be to remove all subsidies and rebates, remove all the tarriffs and extra taxes, make it 10% GST like everything should be, and let both market forces of the free market economy and individual motorists make their own choice which fuel they use.