ABC TV watchers amongst you may have seen the promos already for Christine Milne on the newish Q&A program this Thursday night, July 10, at 9.30 pm. She will be on the panel, focussed on ‘Welcome the new Senate’, with Senator Helen Coonan, Minister Craig Emerson, author Linda Jaivin and everybody’s favourite opinionated columnist, Andrew Bolt.
As well as watching the program, please think about asking questions of Christine and the other panellists - about the Senate and balance of power, about the Garnaut Review, about appropriate responses to climate change, peak oil and the transport crisis, or anything at all that interests you!
Go here to submit a question online. Or you can SMS a question during the program to 197 55 222 - costs 55c including GST.
Enjoy the program and let us know what you think!
Gerard Henderson was out in the SMH today claiming that his dull, anti-intellectual desire for the two big parties to line up against the Senate Greens is “unconventional” and “wisdom”.
He is so boring!
Its no wonder that some people at the SMH want to see the opinion page shaken up a bit…
Oh no! I was looking forward to watching it until I read that Bolt was going to be on there too. Ah well, give ‘em hell, Senator Milne :)
Its obvious for Lab+Lib to line against against Greens, they are much more closely aligned these days, and making business as usual sound new is G.Hendersons job. As for the Dolt on the Hun, i expect him to recite the usual right think lies - don’t stand on your manners, Ms Milne!
I was on the show a few weeks ago when Bob Brown was on the panel. Great show highly controlled however. Didnt get a chance to ask my question to Tony Abbott.
The ABC is highly controlled. Questions will be controlled. Nevertheless I have submitted a question online but expect the ABC will continue to boycott marine ecosystem devastation and solutions. The question is here ‘on notice’ :
Is the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority set by economic policy or environment policy, because the jurisdiction is stopping marine science understanding southern city nutrient pollution flowing into GBR waters where algae blooms are linked to coral bleaching?
We have just seen an economist try to deal with environment climate change. The entire GBR ecosystem needs dire urgent management by biologists, not by economists.
Australia is polluting the marine environment in a big way. The southern GBRMPA boundary must be amended to allow scientific study of the primary food supply source that feeds the GBR. The same source now supplies nutrient pollution that is killing the GBR but scientific study of the situation is blocked by the GBRMPA southern boundary.
Failure to address southern city sewage nutrient pollution and downstream impact is causing the GBR and other coral and seagrass to die with very significant destructive impact on the Asia - Pacific Ocean food web ecosystem.
I got a question!
Why should we believe a report that grossly exaggerates the effects of climate change?
There are very serious questions that need urgent answers concerning economic policy that is damaging the marine environment. See:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/08/asia/coral.php
Algae feeds on available nutrient supply.
Congratulations to Bob Brown!
I’ve just watched him give one of his most brilliant speeches ever to the National Press Club on ABC 1 TV (9th July) . I was also thrilled to see the respect given to Bob by members of the media who asked him questions at the end. Let’s hope some of that respect is reflected in their future editorials.
I loved hearing Bob referring to the “old” parties.
Yes just finished reading that speech right now. Lets hope this press club respect materialises into some main stream media coverage for the Greens as an alternative government in Australia because up to now there has been a concerted effort to exclude the Greens from any media coverage as much as the major parties.
Over fifty percent of world oxygen comes from the ocean. Why is the world ocean environment excluded from debate about climate change policy?
Liam -
Please name for me one verified lie that Andrew Bolt has told either in his articles, on his blog or on a televised appearance.
Or consider retracting your statement.
Ahhhh how good is it for Andrew Bolt to be on Q and A tomorrow night.
No doubt would be good watching to see, considering how up in the air the debate on GW is.
All I can hope is that people out there realize that carbon emissions do NOT contribute to GW, then again, thats probably asking too much.
Michael @ 11 - have a look at this piece on Deltoid for a start.
Deliberately abusing the evidence.
Andrew Bolt likes to argue that reducing our 1.5% will make no global difference. It is amazing that so many people happily buy this invitation to free riding.
The problem that is not seen, and that I hope that Christene points out is that free such riding comes at a cost that has nothing to do with the climate change risk.
The cost of free riding is the risk of being punished for doing so. Typically a free rider punishment is double the cost of the savings attempted to be made by a free rider.
This punishment arises regardless of whether global warming eventuates. The punishment arises because people who have the capacity to penalise us in some way *believe* that global warming may happen. They don’t even need to be sure.
I am quite sure Andrew would be apalled if his own children engaged in free riding because he would not want them to be social pariahs.
I simply switch off to anything Andrew Bolt says. I do this nealry every Sunday watching “Insiders” on the ABC.
I watched as much of that meelie as I could.
We’re……..toast……
One piece of greenery in that toxic soup can’t make the mix edible.
If that is the recipe that we go with then it will be Jonestown all over again.
Here is a thought for those sad people who keep bringing up the 1.5% of total emissions issue. Under our law a persons responsibility is proportional to their ability to act. It is constantly claimed that other countries are not doing anything about global warming. I challenge that perception. It is my observation that global warming is as big an issue in most other countries as it is here. Different countries have differing education standards, political systems, and standards of living. It is my belief that other countries are creating awareness and effecting change within the limits of their abilities. As a country that scores highly in all of standard of living, education standard, and political stability, Australia has a much higher responsibility to act on climate change mitigation than most other countries in the world. And we will be judged if we do not.
BilB@16, ditto. Watched as much as I could stomach and also concluded that we’re stuffed. Hard to see us avoiding runaway global warming if that was representative of public opinion.
The thing that bothered me the most was the minister’s line that solar energy couldn’t handle baseload and was eight times the price of coal.
It seemed to me he didn’t understand the difference between CST and PV. It seems we need to stop simply saying solar and be more specific. When discussing baseload we need to keep saying “CST NOT PV”.
PV is great and is well suited for small scale installations. It is flexible and modular. However existing commercially available PV is not strong enough to win a contest with coal in a ruthless very short term economic analysis. This means it is a disaster if decision makers continue to confuse PV with CST as the minister did.
This suggests we need an education program for ministers. Should take all of about 5 minutes of their time to become educated on this topic. Its pretty simple really. We can’t afford for our future to hang on such basic misunderstandings.
John G,
I shuddered at that as well. It shows how missinformed they are. And being that wide of the mark in their information the decisions being made are laughable. It is John Howard in red. I certainly hope that Christine Milne and Bob Brown will force a renewable energy build plan into the agreement when it comes to the vote on the way forward. My reading of Christine’s words in the Q&A programme certainly suggest that that is what is afoot. As I have said over and over again recently applying pressure to change without providing the alternative will only push prices up without creating the desired change. Look at how robust demand for petrol has been. It took the mandating of 2% of ethanol in petrol to get the ethanol ball rolling because nobody would budge without the certinty that legislation produces. Now it looks as thaough with oil projected to be $8 per litre within ten years the ethanol producers will be pressed to keep up.
Talking about this with my friend who is an economist and an ex Labour ministerial aid today, he pointed out that the Ord River sugar refinery went broke and was bought by the Indonesians. Now the sugar from that part of Australia is sent to Indonesia as stock feed. So the Ord Rivers net value to Australia is for watermellons, pumpkins and squashes (his information, I haven’t checked it out). Talk about misalocated resources. Ord river in cane ethanol has the capacity to provide Australia with E30, and this will be pivotal in helping Australians cope with peak oil. But wait for the howl about the starving millions when the change is made. What? People starving from watermellon deprivation? Please.
Well done Senator Milne, thought you did well and so obviously did the studio audience.
Thanks Tim Hollo for doing my homework for me, providing Michael with an example of Andrew Bolt deceit. The most memorable example for me of the Dolts hubris was his stoush with Jeff Severinghaus of Scripps Institute
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm
The Dolts final position was “i know your research (from reading half of one paper) better than you do”.. News Corp must be proud!
And thanks John Griffen for two excellent points, about the consequences of free-riding, and CST vs. PV. I believe concentrated solar thermal has much lower embodied energy cost too, which will matter alot if total available energy supply contracts.
BilB,
In terms of CO2 abatement, effect on world food prices, cost of production not all ethanols are the same.
Sugar cane ethanol is much preferred over that produced from the conversion of grain.
The proposed 2010 E10 mandate in NSW will have to filled by grain ethanol unless we import it from Brazil.
Your Ord option will not be on line by 2010.
The impact of supplying about 1.5 million tonnes of grain to be converted to ethanol in NSW from the drying MDBasin will be a disaster.
I hope the Greens see reality on this E10 mandate and any grain biofuel industry in Australia.
Two Bob and BilB, the Greens do not support an expansion of first generation biofuels, as the impacts of such on global food supplies are impossible to justify. Not to speak of significant environmental impacts along the way in various forms of their production - notably palm oil and sugar cane.
However, we do strongly advocate research and development of second generation biofuels as well as the roll-out of plug-in electric cars to be powered by an expanded renewably-powered grid. In the meantime, mass transit, car-pooling, riding and walking are the primary solutions…
Tim H,
I think that that is an uncharateristic under informed decision for the Greens to make. Ethanol will be pivotal in allowing communities to survive the vagaries of peak oil and global warming, particularly at village and local level. Consider a small agricultural community who rely on a pump to irrigate farming plots. Methanol and ethanol are the 2 best fuel sources to allow existing machinery to keep running and provide independence. For Australia Cane ethanol is a natural, as there is land that has marginal value for anything other than sugar cane (a weed) which has the capacity to take Australia to E30 at least if not E85 substantially. Businesses that set up to produce ethanol from grain have admitted to me that they made a mistake, and establishing in the Ord would have been a far better proposition. These were people who set out to create a business where they lived, and that is how it came out. No great strategy, very typically Australian.
As for rural communities else where, this ill conceived international vendeta against ethanol completely misses the need for these communities to have a cash crop for money to buy all of the other things that people need other than food. These communities have been pleading for decades to gain agricultural access to western markets and suddenly an opportunity arises through the need for an agricultural product (ethanol), a product that can be traded bypassing all tarrif barriers, and the door is slammed firmly shut by misperception.
The real issue here is where western countries use their economic muscle to rape lands that should be controlled by local inhabitants…. That is the issue….. It is not bio fuels. I am amazed that the Greens cannot see through this. But then nothing is making much sense these days.
Two Bob,
You are correct to say that ethanols are not created equally, and that is a good way of putting this issue. Unfortunately those who would like to see the ethanol industry limited to Whiskey making have focussed their attentions on corn and grain ethanol to debase the entire industry.
Quick facts: Australian cane ethanol is yielding 9500 to 12500 litres of ethanol per hectare (actual current industry sourced information) for a field and transport (fuel) cost of around 3% (extremely efficient) with further energy (biomass electricity) available from the bagasse. With the full combined cycle the potential is for 20,000 litres per hectare. Further, cane for ethanol returns to the farmers twice what cane for sugar production does. This is an important boost to failing rural economies.
Grain ethanol: I was told by an insider, has a very high ethanol per tonne yield (cannot remember how much) but not so good on the per hectrare yield. But the most important point to make here is that (I was told) they use grains that are not commercial for food ie the type of grain that becomes bird seed, etc. Not all grains are created equal. But no doubt there is always the risk that other grain would be used to make up quotas.
On world food shortages.
The real cause of this phenomenon, other than global warming drought (west Timor) and land inundation (Bangladesh) is China’s (and India’s) need to feed more people with less land as they convert huge tracts of land to industrial complexes taking millions of people from agricultural support to industrial occupation in the process. This food demand is marching out from China to surrounding Asian countries powered by China’s industrial wealth and is distorting the local food price structures as the Chinese buy all of the same types of crops only at a higher price.
There are some solutions. And this from a guy who has just returned from living in China for 3 years (and visited my factory on Friday), the Chinese are converting many rice fields to potatoes. Why? Higher yields for lower water consumption.
This is the value of ethanol as a cash crop. it does not compete with local foods, it only competes for land. And this can be regulated from the end user country. Another example is where Kenya grows flowers for the European market. This does not distort Kenyan food prices, other than through local prosperity. So, Tim Hollo, if the Greens are to boycott ethanol production are they also boycotting flower production? There is no difference between the two.
This is not about Q&A, but instead about comments by Bob Brown on channel 10 this morning.
I was impressed by his reference to “baseload solar”. This phrasing is a step in the right of the direction as it confronts the misapprehension of some.
On the other hand I thought it was very unlikely we would ever realise his expectation that by taking a lead in renewables we might become meaningful exporters of SHWS and such. There are at least three reasons this will never happen:
a) Rising transport costs (peak oil, carbon taxes, etc) mean manufacturing is reversing its past trend and is now deglobalising in favour of local manufacturing in each market.
b) Our resource wealth will maintain a strong Australian dollar putting any manufacturing exports at a serious disadvantage.
c) Our very high salaries (in a global sense) and expectation of uncompromising (and thus expensive) workplace practices make it very hard for Australians to compete with manufacturing in countries with less favourable workplace arrangements than we enjoy.
However there is a way in which our adoption of renewables might still lend us an advantage. We have a unique opportunity to become experts at GW scale CST projects. Australia probably needs somewhere in the vicinity of 50 to 100 such GW scale plants over the next 30 years or so (allowing for increases in demand from emerging plug in electric vehicles). We have the financial and solar resources to do it comfortably.
Building this many plants here will create significant, unique and valuable expertise in the process. If we do this ahead of other nations we will have the opportunity and expertise to build and even own such plants in foreign countries and thus derive significant national income.
Jonh Griffin, what do you mean by CST and PV?
Concerned, what is meant by “GW scale CST projects”?
I’m one of the ones who needs educating as I don’t understand what these letters stand for. However, there may be others like me.
Would you be willing to spell out full the meaning of these initials when you post blogs? With thanks.
IF there is impact of climate change already and the dry devastated state of the Murray Darling Coorong is part of it, surely the environment should take priority by blocking off the man-made Menindee Lakes immediately. See:
http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=upstream+release+earmarked&sort=&collection=abcall&form=simple
Surely the people of Broken Hill will understand, for example how toxic algae particles from devastated river systems can dry and become airborne. Devastation of the water environment coincides with increased asthma attacks. At least one toxic algae is known to cause asthma-like attacks in humans.
I think the ABC Q&A program should urgently focus on whether to close Menindee Lakes, and, also question experts whether or not airborne toxic algae particle dust might have links to asthma.
Other questions come to mind. Is river water needed in the marine environment, and if so, why?
Brenda M
CST is concentrating solar thermal. GW is global warming. So GW scale CST means installing CST in gigawatt (1 million kilowatts or 1 million 1 bar radiators or about 8 million solar roof panels) sized facilities. CST uses reflectors to direct the suns rays onto pipes which contain oil, heating the oil to 400 degrees centigrade. This oil is pumped to a steam turbine house where water is heated to produce steam to drive turbines in the same way as electricity is generated now but using the sun’s energy instead of coal. Coal being the main substance which is producing the surplus CO2 which is causing the Global Warming problem.
To give you an idea on scale 1 square kilometer of CST collectors produces 50 megawatts of electricity, so 20 square kilometers (4 kilometers by 5 kilometers) produces 1 gigawatt. The average coal power station produces 1 to 2 gigawatts. So to produce all of Australia’s electricity needs of around 80 (120 in future) gigawatts peak load would require a collector area of 1600 square kilometers. This might sound like a lot but when you consider that the Hunter Valley coal mine alone is a massive hole 600 square kilometers large.
Cost for CST using the European design is around 2 billion dollars per gigawatt for the hybride CST plant which provides electrity 24 hours by storing surplus daytime heat to generate steam at night when the sun is not around, and uses gas to generate steam for the few times when the heat runs out. So the key ingredient in solving Australia’s future electricity needs is a mix of CST and geo thermal power. The advantage of geothermal power is that it is not dependent on the sun’s presence (good for night time or extended periods of cloud cover).
In a nutshell to reduce our CO2 emissions by half is a 160 billion dollar capital cost problem. As this is to be solved over a 20 year period and considering that much of Australia’s electricity generating machinery is due for replacement now, the problem is not so great.
The cost of the electricity from CST is at present projections about twice that of coal powered electrity. But all of the projections have been based on very small less efficient installations. With the installation of very large plants the cost of CST is projected to match the cost of coal powered electricity. So from the end users point of view there will be little change to the present. With solar water heating on every Australian roof and electric powered vehicles charged from the garage wall socket
http://www.bev.com.au/ (for example)
your overall fuel and electricity bill combined may actually be lower than it is today.
So what is all of the fuss about? Big business protecting their position. Some years ago in New Zealand the aluminium smelter powered by Lake Munmora hydro power tried to use a period of weak government to buy the lake dam and power facility threatening all manor of dire consequences if they could not get it. The public aoutcry caused the government to hold firm. The smelter is still there (I believe) and with the energy turmoil present in the world it will be the most cost effective smelter in the world in the near future.
This is not a period when governments should be caving into business pressure as business decissions are based on next year’s balance sheet. An even shorter outlook than government (3 years).
Congratulations to Bob Brown last Wednesday for a truly excellent speech at the Press Club in Canberra.
Quite correctly, in my opinion, Bob put physical response relating to climate change ahead of political economics. Also and most importantly that moving to a carbon emission free and much cleaner life style is a very very desirable goal a better way to go.
How dare Brenda Nelson even contemplate, or any one else, defending coal, it is an dirty toxic substance and as a qualified medical practitioner he should know much better. I can see the defence of coal being much akin to that of the defence of asbestos and tobacco. As commented in the speech coal should be classified as a toxic substance when burnt.
For one born into the industrial North of England just after WWII, I remember with horror the smogs and filth associated with uncontrolled burning of coal in both the industrial and residential areas. In this type of environment sickness and death from respiratory disease is all too common. Coal burning has also left us with the time bomb of climate change.
I left England in the early seventies when the massive physical effort to clean emissions up had significant effect and just when natural gas was starting to make further impact. In the intervening years I have visited my home town UK and have been amazed at the change. Once I thought that someone had gone round the estate I used to lived on with a pressure washer, the rain had washed the bricks so clean revealing fabulous colour shades in the bricks I had never seen before. The parks where I played as kid the trees were all black and dirt rubbed off on to your cloths and the odd squirrel you saw was a mangy grey. Now the barks of trees shine through with their natural tapestry of colours, coated with sensual emerald green moss that shimmers with the morning dew and clear sunlight. The squirrels proliferate and even play on the road side verges their true coats now revealed of vibrant shades of browns and creams.
It is interesting to note the amount of privatisation in the power generation industry that has taken place in recent times. Could it be that state governments are a little more far sighted than the normally like to be seen and flogged off the power industry before it became a pile of scrap metal?
The fasted way to get coal out service is to replace dirty generated watts by clean watts, and this means a new industry of renewable energy technology and all the work that a new industry will create. The carbon tax route is torturous one, there is obvious difficulties in setting it up as the physical constraints play hard against the economic ones.
Re 29.
Apologies. The correct link to my comment at 29 is:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/08/2297176.htm
Detail correction
Manapouri 600 Mw power station, Tiwai Point aluminium smelter 330,000 tonnes per year, brand Comalco/Rio Tinto
BilB,
On world food shortages.
I think that the conversion of at least 7 percent of the worlds grain to biofuels, completely subsidised by governments, is having the greatest effect on the increase of the price of food to the worlds poorest, estimated at between 40 and 75 percent. UN… crime against humanity.
‘This is the value of ethanol as a cash crop. it does not compete with local foods, it only competes for land.’
I am not sure about this comment. Surely local food is grown on land. If land is used for ethanol and people must eat, then marginal land will be cropped with the environmental effects we are worried about.
Flowers in Kenya. The Greens should be against this industry. It is just another extravagence of the developed world that they demand produce out of season flown to them.
However this industry is is but an insignificant pimple on the elephant that is the grain ethanol industry.
Tim Hollo,
It is good to hear that the Greens do not support the expansion of first generation biofuels.
However I do not think it is official from the top yet.
Sugar cane ethanol is much more acceptable than grain ethanol so I think the Greens should put their efforts into stopping grain ethanol first in the Australian context.
Australian governments are currently subsidising and mandating the conversion of grain to ethanol. In the light of the world debate on this industry we must try to get them to revisit their policies.
BilB
Fully agree that non specific terminology has clouded the biofuel debate, often on purpose.
I see it from a different perspective.To avoid the food to fuel issue, advocates of converting grain to ethanol always use biofuels, which include first and second generation ethanol, or just ethanol, which lumps the more acceptable sugar ethanol in with disastrous grain ethanol.
Regarding your comment ‘But the most important point to make here is that (I was told) they use grains that are not commercial for food ie the type of grain that becomes bird seed, etc. Not all grains are created equal. But no doubt there is always the risk that other grain would be used to make up quotas.’
This is the basic spin put about by grain ethanol/biofuel advocates.
In the food for fuel debate there is no difference between grains used for birdseed, stockfeed and grains used for food.
Grain used for non food purposes is grown on the same land as grain used for food. You still see the argument that ethanol from produced from, say, non food grade soft wheat grown for the purpose of ethanol production is somehow more acceptable than ethanol produced from food grain.
The non food grade soft wheat grown for the purpose of ethanol production has been grown on the same land that could have grown a food crop and so is taking away food from the worlds food supply and therefore putting up prices to the worlds poorest in the same way food grain conversion is.
All grains are created equal in the grain ethanol/biodiesel food to fuel debate.
Two Bob,
I think that you are way out of line in your comments. You seem to have missed the point that much of the grain (apart from US corn which is an entirely separate matter) that is converted to fuel is grain that is harvested with commercial grain but is rejected or is weed grain. This is my understanding of which grains are used. Please verify your information if you feel that this is wrong.
Secondly the assessment on what is creating food shortages(food demand from China and India) was made the the head of CNN in a world reported interview as a direct correction to the lead by the interviewer, and verified by the chief editor of the Economist on his recent visit to Australia (during which he had a personal interview with Kevin Rudd). Relating this food problem to ethanol is a convenient fiction of uncertain origin. There are many causes for food shortages and malnutrition which occur in many places. The most common are GW exaccerbated drought, greed, and incompetent government. It is very convenient to dump this all on ethanol. This does every body a disservice.
The price of food is set by the demand for the particular food items. If there is a shortage of paupau then the price for that item will go up if demand is strong. Puting sugar cane to ethanol rather than to sugar production will increase the price of sugar, not any other food item. The current world price for sugar is very low to the point of making it a marginal crop. ie there is an oversupply of sugar. So you should be able to see that cane ethanol is not driving general food prices upwards.
I imagine that the environmental effects of which you speak are related to the supposed conversion of Indonesian peat beds to the growing of palm for oil production. Please explain how this relates to Australia and its production of cane ethanol.
I personally get very annoyed when people choose to merge aberrations of an industry (US corn ethanol, Australian grain ethanol) in order to denerate the entire industry. It is the same ridiculous argument that goes “some men rape therefore all men must be rapists”. I think for the Greens to take a blanket lockout position on ethanol would have to be based on an insufficient study of the local industry. The reality is that the ethanol industry is marching forward based, now, purely on its economic value. Isn’t that what is supposed to happen?
Finally I challenge you to demonstrate that the amount of land put to ethanol production is anything other than a pimple on your elephants back. I’ll give you some starting information, for Brazil (the world’s largest ethanol producer) the figure is 2% (this figure was provided by Lula da Silva in a speech to the previous G8 conference and was verified by US government sources). For Australia I think the cane ethanol figure is less than 200,000 hectares. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.
BilB
Thanks for commenting. I will try and answer you.
Taking your last comment first.
You have clouded the issue with your use of the non specific term, ethanol.
I have specifically quoted the tonnage of the wolds grain converted to ethanol, sugar cane ethanol was not mentioned.
In fact I mentioned that grain ethanol and sugar cane ethanol are different entities. Different because of economies of production, degree of CO2 abatement, impact on the worlds grain supply.
I am concerned about the subsidised conversion of grain to ethanol and biodiesel, not sugar cane ethanol in Brazil or elsewhere.
The USA is going to convert 100 million tonnes of corn to ethanol this coming year if they can harvest a successful crop.That is about 5 percent of the worlds grain production.
Add to that the conversion of oilseed to biodiesel in the EU and various other grain to ethanol/biodiesel plants around the world and the tonnage would be at least 7 percent as mentioned.
This percent has been increasing rapidly and is an elephant in the demand/supply equation of the worlds grain production.
The recent UK Government Gallagher report suggests that it is such a ‘big elephant’ that the EU must reconsider its biofuel policy. This has been followed by initial voting in the EU that their policy on biofuels will indeed be revisited.
A leaked World Bank report last week suggested that 75 percent of the rise in world grain prices can be attributed to grain biofuel production.
As you correctly mention, Brazil has land available to increase sugar cane ethanol production. Other tropical countries probably have the same potential. The developed world could import their ethanol.
Why then are temperate grain growing countries subsidising the much inferior and immoral production of grain ethanol and why are some people still advocating this policy.?
I will get to your other points later.
BilB,
To continue, grain feedstock.
I am not sure why the USA corn ethanol industry is a seperate matter. Any grain ethanol plant in a developed country will be built along the same lines, making use of economies of scale, fed by similar purpose grown grain harvested on an industrial scale.
The supply of grain to these plants have to be secure and of known quality, available year in year out. A profitable plant demands this and fuel security contracts with the distributers demand this.
To think that such an industry can be supplied with gradings or weed seeds from a commercial food crop is wrong.
Inconsistant supply, low starch percentage and variable quality feedstock are just some of the reason why you are wrong.
If a grain ethanol industry is established in an undeveloped country to export ethanol then it will follow the same lines as set out above.
I have no problem if ‘true’ waste is converted to ethanol. I do not believe there is sufficient ‘true’ waste to feed a grain ethanol industry of any significance.
Already we are seeing grain ethanol advocates in NSW redefining waste in weird and wonderful ways to distance themselves from the food to fuel debate.
For those familiar with the process of converting grain to ethanol, calling ‘ethanol a byproduct of the manufacture of distillers grain’ tops the lot.
BilB,
On your second point about the effects on food supply and price of the conversion of grain to ethanol I think the debate is almost closed on this.
UN.. crime against humanity, World Bank…75 percent contribution to the increase in prices, Gallagher report, UN vote, Oxfam and so on all indicate the role grain biofuels have had on pushing millions of people into poverty. They all dump on grain ethanol and grain biodiesel.
As things stand at the present, EU aside, governments are still subsidising and mandating the conversion of grain to ethanol. When will they draw the line? 10 percent of the worlds grain, 20 percent.
Our own NSW government is hell bent on mandating an E10 which would have to be filled with 1.5-2 million tonnes of grain and this will not be ‘waste’.
BilB, the disservice is to the poorest in the world when we refuse to address this grain biofuel issue.
Your next point comments on the price relationship between different grains. If you have a look at the CBOT Futures you can easily see that the price of all grains is connected. Ratios between grains are established and positions are taken on the market when these ratios are considered ‘out of line’.
On the global physical market grain is interchangeable to the extent that all prices are impacted by a change in one particular grain.
The low sugar price you quote is the result of an imperfect market. If sugar cane ethanol was freely traded around the world the cane price would be higher. Its lower price reflects the tariff barriers placed on it be the protection the grain ethanol receives from misguided governments.
On the environment once again I did not mention cane ethanol. You are clouding the debate.
I can however comment on the environmental effects of a grain ethanol industry in Australia.
The MDBasin in drying out according to the CSIRO. For secure supply, the 1.5-2 million tonnes of grain required to fill an E10 in NSW will have to be irrigated in the main. This will place additional demands on the water resources of the MDBasin, impacting on existing end users, the wetlands and even our friends in South Australia.
As well as this, each tonne of grain we convert to fuel here in Australia is a tonne less exported. People must eat so this tonne will have to be grown somewhere else. The best land is already growing crops so this tonne will have to be grown on land newly opened up for cropping and will be more marginal.
The environmental costs of this have to be sheeted home to the grain ethanol industry here in Australia.
BilB, to my annoyance, you are the one lumping grain and sugar cane ethanol together.
You say that ‘the reality is that the ethanol industry is marching forward based, now, purely on its economic value’.
The grain ethanol industry is heavily subsidised all around the world with no way it can ever compete with sugar cane ethanol. Your statement could be true for sugar cane ethanol but for grain ethanol it is fantasy.
BilB,
On your second point about the effects on food supply and price of the conversion of grain to ethanol I think the debate is almost closed on this.
UN.. crime against humanity, World Bank…75 percent contribution to the increase in prices, Gallagher report, UN vote, Oxfam and so on all indicate the role grain biofuels have had on pushing millions of people into poverty. They all dump on grain ethanol and grain biodiesel.
As things stand at the present, EU aside, governments are still subsidising and mandating the conversion of grain to ethanol. When will they draw the line? 10 percent of the worlds grain, 20 percent.
Our own NSW government is hell bent on mandating an E10 which would have to be filled with 1.5-2 million tonnes of grain and this will not be ‘waste’.
BilB, the disservice is to the poorest in the world when we refuse to address this grain biofuel issue.
.
BilB
Your next point comments on the price relationship between different grains. If you have a look at the CBOT Futures you can easily see that the price of all grains is connected. Ratios between grains are established and positions are taken on the market when these ratios are considered ‘out of line’.
On the global physical market grain is interchangeable to the extent that all prices are impacted by a change in one particular grain.
The low sugar price you quote is the result of an imperfect market. If sugar cane ethanol was freely traded around the world the cane price would be higher. Its lower price reflects the tariff barriers placed on it be the protection the grain ethanol receives from misguided governments.
On the environment once again I did not mention cane ethanol. You are clouding the debate.
I can however comment on the environmental effects of a grain ethanol industry in Australia.
The MDBasin in drying out according to the CSIRO. For secure supply, the 1.5-2 million tonnes of grain required to fill an E10 in NSW will have to be irrigated in the main. This will place additional demands on the water resources of the MDBasin, impacting on existing end users, the wetlands and even our friends in South Australia.
As well as this, each tonne of grain we convert to fuel here in Australia is a tonne less exported. People must eat so this tonne will have to be grown somewhere else. The best land is already growing crops so this tonne will have to be grown on land newly opened up for cropping and will be more marginal.
The environmental costs of this have to be sheeted home to the grain ethanol industry here in Australia.
BilB, to my annoyance, you are the one lumping grain and sugar cane ethanol together.
You say that ‘the reality is that the ethanol industry is marching forward based, now, purely on its economic value’.
The grain ethanol industry is heavily subsidised all around the world with no way it can ever compete with sugar cane ethanol. Your statement could be true for sugar cane ethanol but for grain ethanol it is fantasy.
Two Bob,
I thought afterwards that you may be thinking Bio Diesel from canola and other grains.
US corn ethanol is a separate matter because it is highly political in that country and is a manipulation within that country to make a political point.
Bio diesel on the other hand is also a special case because although it is derived largely from seed at present it will not be very long before the algal oil process is commercial and it is this process that has the potential to be the substantial replacement for diesel and jet fuel. Bio Diesel from grain will be a short lived measure as far as the west is concerned but will remain a viable local fuel in the developing world at village level.
The growth of Australia’s grain ethanol industry came out of the early Howard years from a time when there was a need to find markets for grain (remember Iraqi food for oil) and the industry at that time, I imagine, did not see it self as fuelling the nation but supplying ethanol for consumption (a food of sorts) into the world market. So it is from today’s viewpoint (extending drought and global food shortages) ill concieved, but at the time of conception for the market at the time, it was probably quite practical. The grain ethanol industry might survive to mop up grain surplusses and unsellable grain but in the face of ever tougher harvest will see a natural end.
If you remember, Howard did not see Australia as needing a cane ethanol business and tried very hard to kill it off and that is possibly because his forbears were cane farmers and he may have had preconceptions about that industry. So he was prepared to pay cane farmers to sell up and move on. That was the thinking in those denialist Howard years.
What does concern me is Tim Hollo’s statement
…..the Greens do not support an expansion of first generation biofuels, as the impacts of such on global food supplies are impossible to justify. Not to speak of significant environmental impacts along the way in various forms of their production - notably palm oil and sugar cane…..
This to me is taking the worst of excesses practiced in other countries and applying them to Australia, and to me the particular special mention of sugar cane for ethanol is flying in the face of clear thinking.
The future energy picture will be geothermal power, concentrating solar power, wind power, some gas power for peak loading and some residual coal power. This wills supply all of Australia’s electricity needs in cluding a steadily increasing share of power for motor vehicles. On the fuel side Ethanol will the bulk of the steadily declining petrol replacement load as electricity extends its influence, and algal bio diesel will carry the load of diesel and aviation fuel replacement . It is important to remember that not only are there very few electric vehicles available at present but all of the presently available electricity is dirty. And that is the way that things will stay for some time yet. So cane ethanol has a very important transitional part to play to allow people to run out the life of their existing petrol engines with hopefully E30 till a new generation of wall chargeable electric vehicles are available, and affordable.
Australia has the highest per hectare cane ethanol yields in the world and here it is a highly efficient process. At this stage no-one is starving as a result of the activity and so far, along with wind power is the only significant step taken by Australia on an energy front towards curbing emissions.
BilB,
I agree that the Greens could consider sugar ethanol as a possible alternate fuel until second generation fuels hopefully come on stream. We could import it.
At least they should differientiate between sugar cane ethanol and grain ethanol and come out officially hard against grain ethanol as soon as possible.
There is however another path to take.
Ethanol may not be in the mix at all. I will copy my thoughts below. It may be sugar biodiesel!
Sorry too many words. Will copy on next post.
WE DON”T NEED A GRAIN ETHANOL INDUSTRY,
WE MIGHTN’T EVEN NEED ETHANOL INFRASTRUCTURE
Please have a look at the company developing a modified E.Coli that excretes oil at http://www.ls9.com The ABC carried a report on this last week.
If the future lies with this bug’s excreta then a major reason for mandating an E10 and supporting a grain ethanol industry has flown out the window. We are being led to believe that an E10 will prepare the ground for the cellulose ethanol of the future by ‘mandating’ ethanol friendly cars, pumps, tanks, public acceptance, blending facilities and so on, all white elephants if the E.Coli oil proves to be a winner.
On the same theme also check out the potential of algal biodiesel at
http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=58226
Surely caution is the operative word on the proposed NSW E10 and the grain ethanol industry to fill it. Nobody knows yet what will be the biofuel of the future in Australia. It does not have to be ethanol.
The NSW Farmers Association carries an interesting paper on its website http://www.nswfarmers.org.au, see the press release attached. Note the recommendation that “we produce our grain for food and fibre in the short term, leverage grain prices against higher energy prices and position ourselves as ‘a fast follower’ ready to capture new and emerging markets.”
To me this is exactly the path we should be taking, skip the grain ethanol fad, sell our agricultural produce at the higher prices and adopt
best practice second and third biofuels. Rather than be ‘fast followers’, as a wealthy country with plenty of feedstock for second and third generation biofuels, we should be world leaders with all governments wholeheartedly encouraging research into these potential biofuels.
We must assume that if we give it our best shot, second and third biofuels will come on line. Renewable electricity in quantity appears to be a problem .In any case grain ethanol, insecure, uneconomic, unsustainable and immoral cannot be considered as an alternate fuel It’s net CO2 abatement has been seriously questioned.. In the interim we have enormous reserves of natural gas, secure and with significant CO2 abatement over current transport fuels. Please revisit this 7.30 report.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1726428.htm
That is all good news there Two Bob. The LS9 looks promising, but government should send a assessment team if it is to be built into a renewables programme. It has the cost of requiring to continuously buy the proprietry microbes. If it is as promising then I think that this should either be duplicated with original research (back engineered) or bought by the United Nations for all countries. As a stand alone fuel source it does not have the capacity to replace all fuels (balance between land for food and land for fuel) so the way forward must also include the algal oil.
The second link on the algal oil is a little unclear. If the technology is extracting the oil from the algae then this needs no breakthrough as a simple squeeze press extracts 75% of the oil in one go. The real issue with algal oil is the problem of feeding the algae with out consuming copious amounts of energy, taking up too much space, consuming too much water, or requiring too much physical equipment.
The technology network that I am a part of believes that it has a workable solution but it is not yet tested.
The LS9 initiative does not clash with the cane ethanol industry as from what I can see there would be much common equipment which would make a change form one process to the other minimally expensive. I would imagine though that both ethanol and LS9 would be produced in the same facilities. Ethanol up to 30% in petrol improves the efficiency of burning of petrol and extends the range of vehicles using the mix. So I see compatibility rather than conflict. The other aspect is that ethanol is cheaper to produce than $45 per barrel oil equivalent so blending would continue for reasons. of economy. From what I can see there the bio feed stock is common, so it is full steam ahead with cane ethanol, with the view of merging the technologies as the other becomes available.
Please don’t get hooked on first, second, and generation terminology. It is sufficient to monitor land use to balance food and fuel availability. In this country with our standard of government this is possible.
By the way 2Bob did you see the SBS programme on bacteria and the Chinese company that is producing sewerage to bio gas (alias methane alias natural gas) digesters to produce heating, cooking gas, and electricity for Chinese houses. They made 1 million of these in the year of the documentary and are aiming to produce 10 million in 1 year.
People are being led to believe a lot of things, including that steam coming from power station cooling towers is carbon saturated smoke.
The best and most real and sensible information I have seen so far is in comments now appearing on this thread, about converting problematic sewage and algae to beneficial energy.
Here is the skinny on the new photovoltaic panel development.
C:\Documents and Settings\User\Desktop\MIT opens new ‘window’ on solar energy - MIT News Office.mht
C:\Documents and Settings\User\Desktop\BBC NEWS Technology Solar dyes give a guiding light.mht
It turns out that Marc Baldo’s family live in Australia and whose mother passed this info to a friend who passed it on to me. This is very exciting, and may well have a massive impact on the distributed power generation drive.