We have spoken before of this issue.
We I take it for granted mostly fear current growth and its long term effects.
And without doubt given the fact Australia is a very old continent and it lacks water and suitable soils we do not want over population.
When then do we stop? just here or world wide.
An article in this days SMH features section warned the cutting of the baby bonus may also cut growth.
There in its self is a mystery, we take growing numbers in AND pay for childbirth , so growth seems our target.
Yesterday, a world financial expert, no less went on record saying China may not become the economic Tiger we think it already is.
One child policy has in his words left an aging population and no workers to continue the growth.
India however has a much younger population and while far behind China now it will grow in both population and in the economy.
Growth, while we fear the population problems who of us, rural residents for sure, does not want a big W or K mart in town.
A factory with 100 new jobs out side of town.
The issue seems growth and the need for it to keep the economy on the go are wanted by far more than not.

Belly it certainly is a complex issue and one which brings with it strong emotions and it is almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the topic.

Population growth, however one determines the optimum size of a piece of land, can contribute to problems if not managed properly. The problem is the tendency to concentrate growth in already large cities. And failure of proper forward planning around infrastructure and lack of commitment to decentralisation.

Living in Canberra I have always wondered why more government services are not based in rural areas to help sustain those communities. There are some agencies (or parts of) located in rural areas like Albury and some other regional call centres. There are many more functions of public service that do not require ready access to parliament house that could operate just as efficiently in rural areas.

A high speed rail network (once mooted by John Howard) connecting cities, ports and towns would work positively in supporting rural towns.

Radical anti-population reduction policies such as the one-child policies in China (a disaster)verge into the Orwellian world with images of Big Brother and interference in personal choices.

However, the same applies in reverse. What governments can do is to stop paying people to have babies through over-generous baby bonuses, maternity leave, child care subsidies through notions like Costello's 'one for each parent and one for the country' rhetoric. There is something rotton if the economic framwork in which we exist does not support and foster the individuals/families ability to be self-supporting. While there is a high level of personal debt and focus on consumerism it will be difficult to reverse the trend.

It isn't simple, there are many interwoven complexities given the propensity for governments to push the economic growth paradigm over any other human or societal values, and sustainability is often a throw away line rather than a real commitment to environmental protection and population health.

It's not so much a question of population growth – as a question of the rate of growth.

The recent infographics on China from BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20069627

help to put things into perspective.

If you look at the section on the Number of cities in China, Europe and US of 1 million people or more, and compare it with China's energy generation and economic cost to the environment data, the 'growth' to 221 cities of 1 million people or more by 2025 (and beyond) it is certain the Chinese are destined to live in interesting times.

No workers to continue the growth? Not for a while yet, by the look of it. Besides which Chinese companies could always set up factories in Africa.

If the only measures you have for an economy are based on 'growth' don't be surprised if everyone doesn't want more. Except of the costs – monetary, social, political and environmental – required to achieve the 'more'.

Still it would be nice to have something like the Thunderbirds' Tracy Island – paradisical beaches, scenery and a mansion (complete with servants) full of high-tech gadgets – with the rest of the world a short trip away and able after a visit to be left behind.

Complex? not descriptive enough.
The one child policy of China plus the habit of wanting a son but not daughters in India and near by country,s may well be a bigger problem that water shortages or food.
China already is aging, fast currently because of its policy young are far less in numbers than the aging.
India and some other country,s have far more boys than girls, basically because of cultural demands for Dowry's.
The west, developed west, is importing labour and skilled workers, just can not run their economy,s without them.
NO Australian party actually supports other than high growth in population and productivity.
It seems true, maybe unpalatable but still, the poorer the country the bigger the population problem.
Few of us,do not think the worlds population is big enough, maybe too big now.
In time this will confront us,but right now every country wants to develop.
Australia no less than any, refugees/Migrants/457 visa holders are part of that growth.

The problem is not population "growth". Planet Earth can sustainably support ten times the current world's population.

The problem is threefold:

(1) The way natural resources are misused, overused, underused and not used.

(2) The economic system of the world.

(3) Human intellectual biology ... we are a primitive, aggressive, territorial, warlike and competitive species (especially the male gender).

Our natural resources are continually mined, exploited and used without "real" thought regarding sustainability. This is because resources are directly linked to the economy/profit. This link needs to be forever broken, but that will never happen. Why? Because of our primitive intellectual biology which dictates that we put ourselves and our "immediate" needs ahead of the planet's needs.

This is why we are doomed as a species, unless we can eventually alter our intellectual biology. That will probably take many tens of thousands of years, and in the meantime we have to survive as a species (highly unlikely due to our animalistic nature and intellectual ability to destroy each other and the very planet we rely on).

We are a VERY recent species to occupy this planet. Within a hundred thousand years I suspect humans would have been long extinct. Our reign will not last long. We are not the superior species we "think" we are.

The decision has already been made for us.
Population growth rates are falling in developing countries.
As world GDP figures continue to fall, and you can see everywhere the
struggle with money printing and pixel money, we are rapidly
approaching the "End of Growth".

The world populations will realise sometime in the future that the
world cannot support 7 billion people at our standard of living.
Already the Egyptians are coming to that stark fact that their country
cannot support its present population. They got to their present level
as it was a significant oil producer and the government used the oil
income to subsidise the cost of food.
However Egyptian oil production peaked in about 2002 and they are now
a significant oil importer.
Their unemployment rate is still the same as it was before the Arab
spring revolution, but the general population still does not
understand why they cannot afford to eat.
The Nile can support about 20 million, but not the 80 million it
reached due to oil royalties.

Look at Egypt as a mini earth and there you see the worlds future.

Sustainability is not just a Buzz word, but a golden rule that you
break at your peril.

Bazz And DP I disagree, first we are what we are, and we have not begun to truly consider population control.
The developed world is, but poorer nations increase population, just so kids can feed mum and dad.
While I live I grow, and learn, I have recently had to confront my views.
I do not think the planet, under our current systems, is ready for lowering population.
We will need to.
But to try right now? is to say this country is willing to stall its growth.
It takes people to consume and to produce.
We are growing, yes we have troubles, but are currently considering our population one of the most successful economy's.
WE do not have the workers to do all the jobs.
It is complex in this matter as in every thing every action has a reaction, some we can not yet see.
Bazz it has been what?120 years ? from the time oil drove the industrial revolution?
We are not at peak oil.
Not near it.
Both candidates for the Presidency in this USA race say north America will soon not need to import fuel.
Australia could tomorrow join that race, if we used the natural gas we near give away by exporting.
While developing new fuels, the power and influence of oil, is all that stalls that now.

Belly, you are an incurable optimist.
You said;
We are not at peak oil.

Sorry, but we are ! The IEA in their 2010 report said that the peak
occurred in 2006.
All those oil shale and shale gas wells are a new form of Ponzi scheme.
They require constant drilling and a constant flow of money.
They are simply not making money, hence Chesapeake's financial problems.
The wells have a lifetime of about 2 years and cost millions to drill.
>
Both candidates for the Presidency in this USA race say north America will soon not need to import fuel.
----
They are dreaming, it just won't happen, the shale oil production is
falling and the number of working oil rigs has more than halved.
It just isn't economic as they cannot produce oil at a price people
will pay.
The US is still importing 40% of their usage.

Gas, will be used to generate electricity and that will help but they
do not have the credit to convert their truck fleet and car fleet
and install the distribution system. They simply cannot afford it !

No, it is a dream that has a catch 22 built in.

With the worlds resources there is a finite supply for our use.
The more of us there are, the less there is for each of us.
We will like most developed countries attempt to keep our standard
of living, but it will be only possible by keeping the standard of others lower.

Pete you know, I don't think the planet really cares if it's iron oxide is still in a mountain in it's natural state, or is in a junk yard, rusting back into the ground, it is going to keep on circling the sun, regardless.

I don't even think it cares if people profit from digging up its resources, or leave them where they are.

In fact I don't believe it spends much time worrying about us, or even if we exist.

Why, if you dislike humanity so much, do you worry about it so much. The planet is not going to loose any sleep over us, perhaps you should not either.

Belly,

Take a trip to Europe and spend a few days in Prague. You might then begin to realise how vacuous the growth argument is. But at least consider the question of the infrastructure costs of population growth. Pop growth vampires would sooner scoff down knobs of garlic than confront this reality.

It is far from easy, trying to put threads of worth and ones that take us away from politics up.
I had hoped Ludwig would be the first to post, but maybe the very thought this is a many sided issue has turned him away.
Bazz, you are aware I respect you, but as Ludwig has been charged, by others, as being a one issue poster, I charge you.
Not with being one issue Ludwig is not either but you both want to have ONLY YOUR THOUGHTS on your pet issues spoken.
And Bazz YOU ARE WRONG.
Now my poster fester, gee bloke or bloket, you give me no reason to think you understand this complex issue.
I here have DEMANDED WE control the planets population.
Here in this thread said a day will/must come that it is done.
BUT consider what drives an economy.
Is it stagnation, or growth?
We can, by doing things better using better tools, increase productivity without extra workers.
Less jobs less consumers who do we sell to.
Australia can set out to be the world factory or food bowl.
IF we , and we will not, made it work, are we to increase the population to fill our roll?
Dreaming lefts minority see Morris Dancing happy folk in a dream land that is more likely a hell for most of us.
A stagnating population, in just a few country's not all, sidelines those country,s.
We can plant two even three trees for every one we harvest.
Clean river banks and build dams, we can send all storm water inland, and continue to grow our population-for a time.

Yes, I agree Belly, I am a one issue poster and there is a good reason for that.

Energy is the very basis of everything !
Without it nothing happens. As supply gets tight, before even a
shortage develops, the price rises and becomes a pressure on the
economy as its price pulls the surplus out the GDP.

Over the last 50 years every recession except one (the dot com) was
preceded by a spike in oil price. What has happened this time is
different because two years later in 2008 the GFC hit & US oil price
reached US$147 for Cushing Oklahoma.
The crude oil peak in 2006 has set a new parameter and its current
price Tapis $113, Brent $110 last I looked, is what is stopping Europe
from paying off its debts and the rest is history.

The cost of new oil is US$80 to $100 and that oil will become a higher
proportion of the mix as the old oil continues its decline.
That is why they say that we will never have cheap oil again.
At some point in the next few years the decline rate of the old oil
will overpower the rate of new oil and shortages will develope.

Alan Kohler wrote recently that the two methods economists use to get
economies going again is to stop spending and screw down government
OR to spend spend print print the way out of the problem, but
neither is working and no one knows why.

Well that is not true, as there are a few that understand why.
It is just that politicians find it unacceptable and economists are
dumbstruck at the thought.

To get back closer to the point, we have no option but to live within
our means and that means sustainability and the steady state economy.
ie, no growth and hopefully no contraction.

<< ...Ludwig is not either but you both want to have ONLY YOUR THOUGHTS on your pet issues spoken. >>

Huh??

Belly could you perhaps expand on just what you mean by this.

.

I don’t see the issue of population growth as being complex at all. There are however intractable or near-intractable problems when it comes to dealing with it.

In Australia, the most important issue is the terrible closeness of government to the business sector. We’ve got the national decision-maker, which is supposed to be independent of undue influence and we’ve got the hugely powerful big business lobby which very strongly influences, in fact; literally buys its way from government.

THIS is our great problem!

Across the world this is a major issue. Many other countries also have religious, cultural and social security brickwalls.

But as to the advantages and disadvantages of population growth and an understanding that ‘growth’ is a combination of very good and very bad components that are really not hard to separate, I don’t think it is all that complex.

Bazz first, oil plays very Little part in the generation of electricity, coal far from a shortage, and natural Gas can and will fill that hole if one ever exists.
I think your view in relation to that type of power is much as mine is, no shortage exists, or is on the horizon,but cleaner energy is needed.
Petroleum, surely that must be what you are talking about? trains can run on electricity, but need not, right now trucks and buses are running on used cooking oils.
We CAN RUN OUR ROAD TRANSPORT AND ALL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES ON SUBSTITUTES THAT EXIST ALREADY.
And as Germany did in ww2, a long time ago use manufactured fuels, yet we may not need to.
You ignore oil prices near double the price at the start of the GFC did not stall the world economy.
Bad investments, over spending and borrowing , investing in phantom things and massive fraud bought about the GFC.

Ludwig yes mate true, I have seen you get upset with me and others over this subject.
And good or bad every developed country,s government considers its self in partnership with business.
Often the interests are common ones.
Bazz talks of stopping growth, we call that stagnation and fear it.
Can one country stall, stop growing and not become poor, not be defenseless?
I haven my doubts.
Complex? say we stop, stand still, are not a part of the worlds economy.
Our purchasing power will fall, how do we buy medicines.
How can we travel if our currency is just paper in every other one.
If we stop that must happen or will it?

Belly;
I know it is hard to accept and you have plenty of company, but not
Martin Ferguson.

The generation of electricity will not be a problem for a while yet.
However if we start using gas and CTL (coal to liquids) for transport
fuels, that change will deplete coal and gas very quickly.

The amount of energy used for transport is about 9 times that used for
all other purposes. I saw that figure just recently but cannot find it
at the moment. So you can see that gas and coal will deplete very
quickly if we start using them for transport.
It will quickly reach a question of drive or have the lights on.
Of course that takes no account of the relative costs. CTL and gas
conversions would cost really big money.
Some say the US cannot afford to do the conversion, as their credit
is just not good enough.
All this is why I say we should ban all export of gas and coal, we will need it.

Belly, you said this;
You ignore oil prices near double the price at the start of the GFC did not stall the world economy.

But it did stall the economy, that is exactly what did it !
Oil prices rose during 2007 and house mortgage defaults starting
rising and by July 2008 oil reached $147 and the economy crashed
in August and September.

I will try and dig out those figures tomorrow and give you the links.

Bazz you and I by gaining the right to practice our hobby, have proved we have some intelligence.
And yes, like in every matter, we can be wrong.
This is a complex many sided issue.
You and I have seen in our life the costs of petrol rise continually.
Not because of shortages.
The tax monkey rides on motorists backs.
We know that tax is not all used on roads, yet in our state, an extra tax, to fund roads! was put on top.
So yes international oil prices have gone from hight to very high, then moderatly high.
Often OPEC a perfect reason for the west to hasten its independents from oil, flogs us with flow control to keep the prices up.
Price has little to do with supply availability.
Share markets, while driving our system, , in fuel at least impact on price often
Acting Like chook,s in a yard full of foxes, rises or falls can start with spoken threats in the middle east.
I am not thinking of coal to fuel, yes that was Germany,s ww2 answer, in part.
But first of Natural gas, we have heaps.
Then enthinol, better cheaper and not food reducing ways to produce it exist.
News film exists of thousands of tonns of Oranges DUMPED in this country this month.
Opportunistic use of these type of things, mayt be blended with things with less sugar content can make ethinol.
A day, in my view, will come we can and will have smaller ethinol producing plants in the right areas to re use crop wast and waste to generate our fuels, renewable at last.
continued

I doubt Bazz any issue, any at all, we talk about here has only one possible out come.
So we should not think this is a quick answer one.
I basically fear over population.
And it is my clear view this country,s population potential must not be blindly based on per hectare.
But until we learn a great deal more on how to live in peace and as one humanity the game is to get bigger and stronger, in self defense.
I shudder to think we all got out of our warm beds but in our western developed world, in OUR country!last night millions slept out and went hungry.
And the understanding few truly care hurts.
I have had to confront this country needs growth.
Growth in productivity population.
May be we stumble along until the course of natural events, the phantom mother nature settles the issue.

Belly, this is not what I am looking for but it makes the other point
about the effect of oil prices on the economy.
This quote is from the Harvard Business review.

One big problem with these new sources is that they’re costly,
possibly too costly for comfort. “We have ample historical evidence
that when petroleum expenditures reach 5% of GDP, recession typically
follows,” Nelder and Macdonald write. “Annual energy expenditures
rose from 6.2% of U.S. GDP in 2002 to a painful 9.8% in 2008, which
was immediately followed by an economic crash. And now oil is sending
energy expenditures back above 9% of GDP, just as we see fresh
indications that the recession persists. This is not a coincidence.”

the link;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/defining-peak-oil/2011/10/06/gIQABuLgQL_blog.html

Bazz I have long ago thought high oil prices ,for the same reasons, not linked to shortages, tax and market control by OPEC are counter productive.
We pay far too much in tax,s, and now we refine no oil here will, in time pay more.
SOME affect to the economy is assured at peak prices.
This however is not linked to any real shortages-yet, or very soon.
I understand, and we all must, tax is needed and we must pay it, but we need real tax reforms ,not jumping on every passing opportunity to tax.
Greens and fellow travelers see less use of cars as good, we do not all live in City,s.
Internal weekend tourism is dead few can afford the Sunday drive.
I remember petrol at 20c and dezel 11 pence 11 cents today.
not ancient history 48 years ago.
I maintain we will produce new fuels, we are told price stops us.
Not true, in the days I spoke of to even think a tank of petrol would one day cost 6 weeks pay would have us committed.
If we pay $100 a ltr we will earn enough to pay it.
If it is that price near a third, as it is now, will be tax.

Belly said;
I maintain we will produce new fuels, we are told price stops us.

Not quite Belly, it is not so much the price that stops us but the
net gain. Years ago, it took a barrel of oil to produce 100 barrels.
Today we are down to about 15 barrels for one.
Some of the biofuels are as low as 2 or 3 out for one in.
Because of this, Europe has removed its regulation that a percentage
of bio fuels must be used.
The same will happen here when "they" wake up.
73

Belly

You should take a holiday in some of these stagnant places. The notion that things fall apart when pop growth stops is pop zealot dogma, as is the cop out comment "Things just need to be managed properly.".

What is needed in the argument is real examples and figures, not airy fairy waffle. Where are the real examples of low growth stagnation? You could start by showing how Prague has suffered from its lack of growth. Then you might take a stab at guessing the per capita infrastructure cost in Australia.

My lack of interest in this debate stems from the fact that pop growth zealots dont want to face reality, and instead live in a fantasy land where racism is the sole reason for opposing population growth, and infrastructure costs are not significant.

Bazz I found you figure extraordinary, and know we have diverted the thread but still disagree with you.
Their are no schematic diagrams for our future no plans set in cement.
But some things seem clear.
Massive growth in China, India, Indonesia and parts of both south America and south Africa.
But wait there is more!
The middle east and south east Asia are going to confront other truths.
I think ww3 is a near certainty, and not a long way away.
In time of war the things holding back new fuels, self interest of fuel owners, more importantly their ability to PURCHASE wanted out comes/Politicians will be over ruled.
Between us and new fuels stands,stalled by on all sides bent politicians, nothing else.
73,s to you too my club in the bush without me 24 hour horse enduro,

Belly said;
Bazz I found you figure extraordinary,

Well thems the facts Mam ! as Joe Friday used to say.
No way around them.

Bazz I was not challenging the numbers just expressing my shock.
Fester I let you off the hook.
Just noticed,my fault your JUNK COMMENT that racism is my reason to want population control, gee bloke wake up!
Given my dislike of Muslim Migration, boat people ext, you see me as a yank style lets shoot them racist.
Fact is I am the first to seek out and welcome any new arrival.
I have been re moved from a post office! for supporting three young lady's crying their eyes out!
Trying to answer the Aussie test being given to them HARSHLY, by a CHINESE EXTRACTION woman WHO CAME HERE AND NEVER HAD TO ANSWER the silly thing!
What is the crime called for your crime, wrongly marking me and those who think like me racist?
Or hers? insulting and harassing young women not of her back ground but from the same country Malaysia?

errr, displike of moslems is not racism.
Religiousism perhaps but not racism.

Bazz, dislike of muslims in their country of origin may, just may be racism.

Dislike of Muslim immigration to Oz , just sound common sense.

Everyone should be allowed to practice self preservation, only idiots would not do so.

Hasbeen good onya bloke!
Why lie.
Free speech lets some dreadful comments about us out in their holy places the dead meat stuff.
Hope your day lillys are good lost a few but have about 100 left.
Dry and need rain.

Belly

What you think of race is none of my business, but would you agree that critics of high immigration are inevitably labelled as racists?

One concern is that the massive infrastructure cost of high immigration impacts on Australia's ability to train and educate.

A really good battery could be revolutionary: It might even restore the Sunday drive.

Fester having a little trouble seeing your point.
Are you now saying we ,well, no you are not.
I condemn any thought and it is new to me, that people concerned for the planet or this country enough to debate population are racist.
In fact I am concerned, very much so, about our whole atitude ,that we can expand endlessly.
But too that some countrys can stand still, in population and not suffer.
Complex for sure.
Battery's? well in part and answer, not yet the country drive about 50 klm before out of fuel and a neck and neck race with a road side rabbit?
Not my thoughts about car tourism.

Belly, it is hard to find articles I have previously read.

This one illustrates the ponzi scheme of shale gas in the US.
It might not be the same here.

http://tinyurl.com/9n9yygz

I notice that some of the coal seam gas companies here are very small
and some are $2 shelf companies.

This article is by one of the aknowledged experts in the field.

http://tinyurl.com/9nbodaj

This one is a list of articles on the alternate gas & oil.

http://www.energybulletin.net/taxonomy/term/2

Down the left side is a list of categories by fuels etc.
Pick a subject you fancy, and I am sure you will find it interesting.
They are mostly about the US, but it is interesting how similar our
situation is to the USs.
Mostly if you just knock a zero of the end of numbers they become
similar to ours, eg they import 40% of the oil, we import 50%.
Our gas prices are not similar, but we are now starting on shale gas.

73

Bazz yes seen that ,we used shale to make fuel long ago, not sure it is yet a big impact thing or ever will be.
CSG is we have heaps, nothing we have so far is sustainable, not forever.
But I believe we will find something.
Well ethanol if it was not taking food from the table would be.
I too am researching both the fuels of the future and other views on population.

Belly, there is one process for ethanol whose name I have forgotten
that uses non food crop residue, tree branches etc, but because it does
not have much sugar needs a lot of processing and uses more energy than
you get back out. Celestorive, or a name like that it is.

Well we have a lot of csg, but if we start using it for cars & trucks
as well as electricity generation and export, it will only extend the
decline of oil by a fairly short time.
It will decine quite quickly under those circumstances.

There is some interesting research into pyrolysis.

http://biofuels.che.wisc.edu/

But whatever happens with Australia's population, we will still need oil alternatives. I'm optimistic that fuel alternatives will be found, but surely a more pressing problem for Australia is water security? Isn't it the case that more people equates to less water per person?

Fester I share those views, we will find fuel, but water is to be a problem.
I live in an area that has had up to twice its annual rain fall for every one of the last 4 years.
We are now in a short, 3 months, dought, my black clay ground is parched as if it has been years.
Setting up salt removal systems can help, but we will still not be helped, no town water or sewage even in sight.
Bazz, I had high hopes for that type of ethanol, roadside grasses and a swampy reed type plant, by the thousands of tonn,s, blended with high sugar content held promise.
It is wasted now.

Fester, many ideas seem promising, but the old ERoEI. Energy Returned on Energy Invested
brings us down to ground with a bump.

Belly, an article by a chemist, it might have been Robert Rapier's blog
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/columns/rsquared/
commented that oil has the highest known energy density after uranium.
Because of this other liquid fuels that we produce need some processing
and that extra processing is what makes them have a less net energy and cost more.

My suggestion is that we should not be surprised if we never find
a liquid renewable energy source.

Bazz we certainly got away from threads subject.
But as I agree these things impact on population I helped the move.
However rather a long bow in use here, what are the costs in producing CSG.
WE EXPORT IT [natural gas] at less than wholesale cost of LPG we buy at the pumps.
Shale? yes the very reason we stopped using it, was costs to retrieve it.
In fact Humanity will not retreat on this matter, it is Laughable, to think man lands on Mars, has mapped the human Gene system.
Has in yours and my lifetime Bazz, seen us move forward on many fronts.
If no other option than ethanol, we would make enough .
IF, for a time,Natural gas was all we had we would use it.
We have no intention of returning to bear skins and the caves.
SOME folk who use no petroleum have more children, to feed mum and dad it old age, linked to the over all subject if not its side issue.

Belly re shale oil.
Not sure anyone knows what the costs would be here.
In the US, they stop drilling if their price at the well head is less
than about $80 a barrel.
Gas is something different but they say that at $2 a mega joule they
are are going broke. It seems that because of transportation costs the
price of NG is all over the place.
I have no idea what they are getting for csg here.
It is just that I am very skeptical when I see reports of a bonanza.
It will be interesting to see what is the csg decline rate.

Bazz I agree shale oil is out of the question -currently, due to costs of extraction.
Mate thought you would know CSG and Natural Gas are the one product.
And that Australia has a great deal of it, in fact the world has,and may have as much as we had oil at the start of us using it.
This does not make it sustainable, or a long term answer.
Current speeding up of the search for fuel,s, and the time we are given by Natural gas and oil will carry us till new fuel arrives.
My guess? a blended ethanol.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/aussie-brothers-make-biofuel-breakthrough/story-e6frfku9-1226508496055
Bazz this link caught my eye.
The Bell mentioned, as far as I know is no relation.
Dad and his clan had big family,s as did mums 13 is about the average.
Now I am as interested in this subject as you are.
And constantly trawl the web looking for such.
A thousand such links could be found, without trying.
This looks promising.

Yes, Belly I did know that CSG & Natural gas are almost the same.
The link is to a process similar to what they are doing in Brazil.
It is a viable process and might produce some ethanol.
I have seen what the net fuel ratio produced was but I cannot remember
what is was.
I wonder if they gave the figure in their report.
It does raise the question as to why they gave up in Queensland.

Do you know if there is still any ethanol production in Queensland ?
Most of the ethanol here comes from wheat grain.

Bazz in a recent link, maybe the one above it was said we do not currently use food stuff for fuel creation here.
Not sure what they do in QLD, but current world wide grain shortages have driven prices high, a benefit for us this harvest year.
Not going to be sustainable to use other than spoiled grain in fuel production however this year.
My hope is products lower in sugar [power] will be usable with new ways yet to be found.