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?