News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Farming's ethanol divide widens 

Farming's ethanol divide widens

23/09/2008 11:39:00 AM
The future of the Australian ethanol industry is again in doubt, following decision by new NSW Premier Nathan Rees to scrap a planned 10pc ethanol mandates in that State.

While the move has been welcomed by the Australian Lot Feeders Association, the NSW Farmers’ Association is ramping up its efforts to promote alternative fuels.

NSW Farmers will join in next month’s the NRMA roundtable discussion on alternative fuels and energy sources in Australia.

NSW Farmers’ Association president Jock Laurie says the roundtable will explore ways to “optimise biofuels as part of a mix of alternative fuels and technology for future transport needs, issues of great importance to the farming community”.

But ALFA says ethanol mandates have negative grain, food and environmental impacts, which outweigh any benefits involved.

ALFA vice president, Jim Cudmore said there was “increasing international condemnation against Government support for particularly grain-derived ethanol production given food price, poverty and environmental concerns”.

“Even the US, an ardent biofuels supporter, has seen the error in their ways with the Republican Party recently reversing its policy by stating that they will remove ethanol mandates should they be returned to office,” Mr Cudmore said.

“The EU has also recently lowered its targets for biofuels sourced from crops due to the same concerns.”

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The ethanol debate will remain in muddy waters until it is realised that ethanol must be differentiated as to its feedstock. Ethanol from the conversion of grain impacts food, does little to abate greenhouse gases and is impractible in NSW because of variable harvests. Ethanol from true waste is a much more acceptable proposition while ethanol from sugar cane has food impact, economical and environmental advantages over grain ethanol. Second generation ethanol from cellulose is the holy grail, to be supported to the hilt. So without nominating the ethanol, feedstock articles as the one here, any political comment and discussion is meaningless. The proposed E10 in NSW will have to be filled by grain ethanol and so must not be mandated. The Federal Excise Rebate for biofuels must also take account of the type of ethanol feedstock and withdraw its support for grain ethanol.
Posted by two bob on 24/09/2008 9:29:26 AM
Cellulosic ethanol is the only rational fuel alternative and should not be subsidised to become acceptable.
Posted by miasma on 24/09/2008 11:14:13 AM
Cellulosic ethanol is still a long way off. It requires massive amounts of low value material be transported for storage and conversion. Grain is already transported and stored efficiently, and is a much higher yielding source of ethanol. Maybe the way to go is to reduce grain feeding of cattle and feed them cellulosic material (grass) instead. They are much more efficient converters of cellulose than any ethanol plant, and that might reduce the demands on grains, and also the self-interested whinging of the lot feeding sector.
Posted by Firefly on 24/09/2008 12:00:36 PM
Why would anybody bother with second generation biofuels if there are no incentives (ie mandates)? What we really need is one of the government officials to tell how our future transportation fuel needs are going to be met and satisfied?- especially in light of peak oil, rising demand & low oil supply, price volatility etc. The US and EU have set contingency plans for securing fuel supplies (25% by 2025 & 20% by 2020). No prizes for guessing how they're going to achieve it!
Posted by 2GEtol on 24/09/2008 1:19:41 PM
As usual...Australia a country which has the most renewable energy potential puts its head back in the sand. Just note Australian crude oil reserves are also plummeting. Second generation ethanol is still not commercially viable. Remember, Indiana Jones is still looking for the Holy Grail.
Posted by terry on 24/09/2008 3:04:05 PM
Sure.. It was realised lately by the biofuel promoters that the blending targets were extremely ambitious and unrealistic to be attained without threatening food grain availability and boosting up prices at least in the near future... Hence, it's very important to distinguish, at least for the purpose of subsidising, ethanol production based on its source/feedstock and grain-based ethanol should be discouraged for the simple reason that increased uptake of grains for fuel definitely overtakes any productivity increase that in fact takes long time to be achieved only to result in dangerously low foodgrains buffer stocks driving up the prices. So, it's necessary for the Govts to scale down the mandatory blending targets and encourage use of other biomass feedstock like algae and cellulosic ethanol production to avoid the world running through another rough patch of high food prices.
Posted by Raghavan Sampathkumar on 24/09/2008 6:45:19 PM
Well said Firefly!
Posted by me on 24/09/2008 10:49:38 PM
Rees has just demonstrated that he is making decisions on the run with no economic or science base. Clearly, the oil and feedlot industry want to scuttle alternative fuels for their own reasons that have nothing to do with clear air, competition, economic self-reliance, etc.

The fuel and food link is nonsense and just a beat-up. Ethanol plants only extract carbohydrates from grain and the rest of the grain and the waste (protein rich wet distillers grain) is available for reuse in farming as soil conditioners, stock feed, liquid fertiliser, etc. Besides, grain growers can ramp up production to meet market demands for food and ethanol needs, the debate needs to get back to why alternative fuels are required and the economic, social and environmental reasons for this course of action.

The NSW government should support this initiative and rural economies.

Posted by Mangiri on 25/09/2008 1:18:54 PM

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Q: Should farm management deposits be considered as part of an asset test to determine if farmers are eligible for Government-funded drought assistance?

Yes
(49.6%)

No
(45.3%)

Undecided
(5.1%)

Total Votes: 603
Poll Date: 21/09/2008

26/11/2008 | If we're serious about roo farming, we'll need to start with a breeding program and kangaroo EBVs for marbling and tenderness.
 
S&L Advertising
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
Rural Bookshop
 
Horse Deals Australia
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...