*you have to remember even if you are getting a small energy
gain it is not enough, you have to cover all the costs as well and
the small energy gain is just not enough.*

Bazz, of course you have to take costs into account. But also total
returns and the cost of your original input. Not all energy costs
are the same per unit. Then with ethanol we have a waste which makes
great stockfeed, which one can sell.

That is why we have a market which establishes values and its up
to every business to work out their own costs and benefits.

The point is, there is no good reason to treat energy going to feed
people any differently then energy going to transport etc.
The moment it becomes more profitable to use canola oil to drive
machinery then to sell it for food, so let it power tractors and
trucks. There is no good reason to limits its use to just human
consumption.

Fuel for thought.
Ethanol will increase toxic exhaust emissions such as Acetaldehyde , Formaldehyde and Peroxyacetyl nitrates to name a few and introduce a few new ones. Battery power has a problem with disposal of used batteries (lead and cadmium). Bio-Diesel (or simply Diesel) there is a huge problem with particulates but could be easily overcome.
Hydrogen seems a reasonable answer but is extremely volatile. It seems the world (US) will eventually go down the path of hydrogen/electric propulsion for casual domestic use.

The amount of food grown world wide is currently far greater than is needed. The problem is purely one of distribution. For example where I live food grown in the region has to be sent 1200 kilometres to the distribution point and then shipped back 1200 kilometres for us in this region to consume. By the time it goes from the grower to the table, in this region, the time is counted in weeks. Spoilage is huge. Farmers under there contracts can’t even have a road side stall or they will be in breach. This system may have worked for Neolithic man but today? Really!
There are solutions to the food for fuel debate. Industrial hemp (no drug value) seed has one of the highest oil contents for seed of its size and is prolithic. It’s basically a weed that will grow in any soil and planting density is many times greater than wheat. It doesn’t need good water and if conditions are right you can get 3 of 4 harvests a year. By-products are stock feed, paper, textiles, petrochemicals (from seed oil) and manufactured building products. You could say the Americans won the WWII on it. Problems?

Whatever our eventual source of fuel. It will not be what is good for the environment or the population. It will simply be what ever will keep the current economic status quo in the world. It’s all about GDP.
I won’t insult your intelligence by quoting references, there are hundreds of reputable sources. I’m sure your all capable of using an internet search engine.

The facts here they are;
You said;
Battery power has a problem with disposal of used batteries (lead and cadmium).

Neither of those battery types are used in electric cars.

You also said:
It seems the world (US) will eventually go down the path of hydrogen/electric propulsion for casual domestic use.

No it won't, hydrogen has been given up on, possible exception, busses.
Hydrogen is very inefficient in energy trail.
Has to be exctracted from natural gas or by electrolysis and the
distribution is very inefficient.
It would require about eight times the number of tanker trucks.
Very expensive service station refit.
Cannot park cars in underground car parks.
It leaks continuously. Special ventilation car parking needed.
Last of all large energy loss from mine or well to wheels.

nocsg, I am sorry if I gave you the opinion that I didn't know much about CSG.

I have been told that the water that holds the gas down is not the same as the farmers use and, that ther is a large layer of bedrock serparating both water deposits.

What I can say is that what I have witnessed is extreem environmental awareness from the company I am involved with.

JustGiveMeALLTheFacts
The amount of food we can grow is not th issue.

The issues are, will we pay the price required to provide farmers with a decent living.

Currently, they are at the lap of the gods to some extent, as they really don't know what thier sell price will be once thier cops have hit the market.

Furthermore, many crops are simply left to rot as the costs required to harvest, wash, pack and freight often out weigh the gains.

This is less likely to happen with bio fuel, and it is for this reason that I feel farmers may go down this path.

They are already paying up to $35 per hour for tractor drivers, often with no income coming in for months, if at all.

Any business is about risks V gains and as gains fall, the players will go

Unless they can figure out a way to produce hydrogen more efficiently, (like mining the stuff from outta space), it's a complete waist of time. Hydrogen is like pushing a billy cart 500 meters uphill to roll down to the shop 250 meters down hill from where you started, why bother? It's like one of those old Irish jokes about the Irish space program and flying to the sun when it's dark!

It's the same for solar panels just quietly, but don't tell all the nongs that have put them on their roof!

Rawmustard & Gimme facts;
There was one really import fact that I missed.
My son's father-in-law was managing director of a UK bus company and
was on a British Govt committee that looked into just this matter.
He said the whole hydrogen scheme, apart from any other considerations,
falls over because the fuel cells do not have a sufficient lifetime.
They just cost too much to replace.