diesel and Aus politics dont mix... apparently

[gldgti]

Hi there fellow converts,

thought i'd start a bit of a commentary on my take on the current situation in australia as far as energy and sustainability goes. It's something I'm passionate about, and i think its omething everyone should atleast be aware of, given the current world climate (climate in every sense of the word).

As keen dieselers you guys are all automatically aware of the importance of fuel economy, or you would have petrol guzzlers... no offence ot the petrol heads either.

I know some of you guys are into bio-fuel as well, which for me is very encouraging. My father has been making his own bio-d and running it in golfs and a 240D merc for almost 4 years i think it is now. having to drive 100km round trip to work each day means he's saving thousands per year on fuel, with an outlay in time and effort at home. but even then, the principal behind bio-d alone is enough for dad to make it, as it is carbon neutral and cleaner than dino-diesel.

Some of you may have heard that ABG, the Australian Biodiesel Group, has recently brought in their new factory outside Brisbane. Unfortunately, they also announced that due to lack of support from federal and state governments, further plans to expand are not being considered at this time. They will instead turn theire focus to the US, which for all its current bad politics, is more supportive of biodiesel research than we are, apparrently.

This is saddening news for me, as it shows that although there is significant industrial and commercial interest in building this sustainable energy infrastructure, there is clearly no political support for it.

Even more discouraging are certain other aspects of the encumbant industrial commercial and political heads policies seeping down the the next generation of engineers and specialists, and the population as a whole:

In the last week, as a member of Engineers Australia I have recieved invitations to tour the new coal loading facitly at Kooragang island, set to increase total output of the facility to 111 Mega tonnes/year (thats 111,000,000 tonnes exported); and to an information/promotion night for "the hybrid evolution", a seminar on the benefits of hybrid technology, and a toyota prius on display.

given that both of these areas are, to my point of view, dead end roads to an unsustainable future, it seems annoying to me that separate industry orgainisations like IEAust are placing such positive wraps on these areas that I think i ought to be trying to think AROUND, and not WITH.

Anyway, if anyone has some comments i'd love to hear what you guys all think.

Cheers,

Aydan

[smithy010]

Tell me, is the government only expecting us biodiesel producers to pay 19c/l, or are they expecting the full 38c/l?
That alone seems like enough reason to accuse the government of not encouraging the use of biofuels!

[brackie]

Let's get the biofuel thing into perspective.

* It's great.
* It's renewable.
* It does wonderful things for your injection pump.
* It's emissions are less.

BUT:

* It's taxable.
* If you use waste it's a bugger to get clean.
* If you use virgin it's not much cheaper than petrodiesel. (When I was about to start using it virgin poppy seed oil was 50c/L. Now it's in demand it's over $1.00. Canola is 20c/L more expensive. By the time I get it delivered or pick it up from 100km away it costs more than petrodiesel.)

AND:

If we were to grow enough oilseed crops in Oz to fuel our diesel fleet we would use ALL of our arable land to grow it plus have to import about the same again from overseas. If I was to put all of my farm under canola I could produce enough biodiesel to power my cars and tractors for 1 month of normal use.

Not the answer I'm afraid. But, that not saying, "Don't keep on making biodiesel". Good on ya. Something is better than nothing. I still run canola through my fuel systems periodically 'cos I know it's good for them.

[smithy010]

Hmmmmm.

I understand bio fuel should still be taxable, because in the end we are all road users and we gotta pay for the roads somehow.

As far as i know, there is still the standard 38c/l excise on biodiesel. Added to this, there is no incentive for transport operators to use biodiesel, because they can no longer claim their diesel fuel rebate (12c/l) on biodiesel. If the government were to actively encourage the use of biofuels, surely more people would use them.

Is this what you were getting at Ayden? Or was it more the idea of diesel in general.

[peter_j_g]

In the EU there is a directive that 5.75% of all fuel use is to be biofuels by the year 2010 - that's only 4 years away.

Biofuels are hitting the mainstream here. Recently in Germany i saw many service stations selling biodiesel at 99 euro cents/litre, normal petrodiesel is 1.30 euro/litre.

In Sweden I noticed a Saab 95 with a small biopower badge on the back. Then I saw another, and another, and another... Also noticed many service stations selling E85, ie a mix of 85% ethanol 15% petrol. The Biopower version of the Saab 95 uses E85, and actually produces more power than the standard version. You also benefit from a lower annual tax, and are exempt from Stockholm's congestion tax charges. By the way, traffic in Stockholm is worse than in Sydney!

In Finland biodiesel is becomming readily avaliable - and produced locally. A large plant is under construction - details at: http://www.nesteoil.com/default.asp?path=1,41,540,1259,1261,2357,2515

This plant alone will provide around 15% of the country's diesel. Note that it's being built by a major OIL company... There are also several other plants for both biodiesel and ethanol under construction. The quest for self suffiency is certainly on in this part of the world!

[smithy010]

Great to hear the EU is getting their act together.

15% biodiesel- that's pretty awesome!

[Golf Loon]

Yeah and the New Saab running better on higher concentrations of ethanol is clever use of turbo technology and getting less engine knock than on petrol.

The Swedes care about the environment and technology though.

[GoLfMan]

have you heard about the 5 fuel volvo???

[gldgti]

just to answer a few questions...

it was put to transport minister last year the question of tax, and his answer was along the lines of:

"small producers for private use only still have to pay 38c/l tax, but we dont really care if you dont pay it"

the taxation spokesperson at the time said:

"everybody will pay 38c/l tax"

- take from that what you will.

now the question of oil:

there is a great deal of misinformation going about about the amount of land needed to grow oilseed crops, etc. calculations about oilseed growing take into consideration current fuel useage rates - not target rates.

heres some important things to think about:

> using biodiesel (and ethanol) is not the answer to all our problems. however it is the answer to some of them - heavy moving, industry, country people need to drive a long way etc...
> if we plan to exist for the next thousand years we need to be prepared, and indeed, welcome some change in how we think about, and the way we utilise resources such as waste oil and biomass.
> energy sources will need to be de-centralised and become area specific if renewables are to be successful

[smithy010]

An interesting thought experiment i did for one of my tech electives.

From my moderate knowledge of canola in the riverina region of NSW,

Avg yield= 1.5t/ha

Avg oil content: 35%

=0.525tonnes of oil per ha.
= about 570l of oil

now, if my diesel golf does the claimed 5.5l/100km, i should be able to travel 10300km on one hectare of canola.

Obviously this is greatly simplified, because the methanol is not factored in, nor is the power to plant, harvest, and press the canola, but it's a pretty cool thought!

I think for the amount of oil i am using, Mr Howard can go and get F%^&*d.

[Golf Loon]

I think for the amount of oil i am using, Mr Howard can go and get F%^&*d.

Hoorah, well said :)

[hiho]

Good on you Ayden for starting this thread.

The way we use energy must change if we are to survive as a civilisation as well as advances in technology and use of renewable energy sources such as biodiesel. I cant wait for a carbon price signal to be introduced (carbon trading/credits/tax) so there is a true cost of fossil fuels passed onto the consumer. That is when BD and other renewables will have the price advantage that is inherent to them and they deserve. Low emission coal will also be very important if they can make it work. Maybe then we will use energy with respect.
Wont happen with our fearless (blind) leader at the helm

[brackie]

Obviously this is greatly simplified, because the methanol is not factored in, nor is the power to plant, harvest

As a guide, farmers generally work on the basis that it costs about half of the yield price to grow the crop. This of course doesn't include labour which is a considerable part of the real cost of producing the crop. If you like, this is the farmer's "wages".
So, by the time you include:

* seed
* fertiliser
* irrigation
* machinery costs (maintenance, interest etc)
* diesel
* interest on the land used
* wages of farm hands (you just can't do it all yourself!)
* pesticides (believe me...brassicas attract them all and without pesticides you just wouldn't have a crop)
* tax

Also remember that when the crop is cropped the ground has to be reworked (diesel, implements etc, etc)

****** And of course... you can only plant the brassica every 4 to 5 years so if you have say 100ha of arable land only 25 can be under brassicas in any year.*******

You guys getting my drift?? When we say that if all of the arable land in Oz was used to cultivate oil seed we're really only talking about 1/5 to 1/4... and... the farmer has to make a profit or he starves.

[Seano]

I'm with Brackie on this one especially since he's though of everything in my argument except the one other thing that we don't have enough of at the moment.....water.

Simply because of production constraints and demand, biodiesel will only ever be a portion of the answer.

Diesel in itself is not the only answer either given that it is the most polluting of the common automotive fuels in terms of particulates...to control particulates adds significantly to the cost of the vehicle in both emmision control tech and engine management tech.

The 'answer' (such as it is) is to source our automotive energy supplies from the widest range of fossil and sustainable sources that we can find....natural gas, LPG, methane, hydrogen, fossil oil, ethanol, plant oils, electricity etc etc etc....and to use only what we need rather than whatever we'd like.....

Wedding ourselves to one fuel over another becuase we percieve it to be better when all in all it is just another alternative is just as blind as our gargantuan (and futile) desire for fossil oil.

Incidentally, when I can, I've taken to using the biodiesel blend produced by South Australian Farmers Fuel http://www.farmersfuel.com.au/PremiumDiesel.html It is quite nice stuff. The Transporter enjoys the drink and seems to sip very nicely at it too.
FF are also moving towards the wide distribution of biodiesel too http://www.farmersfuel.com.au/Biodiesel.html

[Edison]

> > energy sources will need to be de-centralised and become area specific if renewables are to be successful

The precise OPPOSITE of capitalism. The precise OPPOSITE of the oil companies whole charter of ideals. An oil company is one person who says the hole in the ground is theirs and uses it as gods wallet. With unimaginable profits of course they will work against all alternatives. They might be greedy they are probably immoral, but one thing you can be absolutley certian of, they aren't stupid. pick up a 100 year old newspaper and read the letters to the editor, they are word for word precisely what you are saying here. mask the dates on the paper, and you cannot pick which 'oil crisis' it was. it's an old game with the same players and the same gameplay the only thing new is you and your generation.


> if we plan to exist for the next thousand years we need to

Will never happen. 6 billion, in fact anything billion for humans is a plague, and nature is going to do what it always does with all plagues. Correct it. We will be wiped out by nature itself, and it won't take 1000 years. I absolutley doubt it would take 100. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if I see it happen on the news myself.(I hope to be in the wilderness at the time)


Incidentally, when I can, I've taken to using the biodiesel blend produced by South Australian Farmers Fuel http://www.farmersfuel.com.au/PremiumDiesel.html

Want to borrow my crystal ball? in a few years the oil companies will drop the price of pump diesel to put this and all the companies like it out of business.


Obviously this is greatly simplified, because the methanol is not factored in, nor is the power to plant, harvest, and press the canola, but it's a pretty cool thought!

Canola doesn't need processing, my Mk1 Diesel has a tank full of the stuff and so far so good, driven like 20 times getting the blueslip arranged and no problems, same as diesel. I am making parts so it can use waste oil.

[smithy010]

Yeah i know, and when i get the biodiesel going i will also install a SVO system, but it's really only good for long runs- you have to heat it. right?

[gldgti]

WOW WEEE!!!

now i'm happy. all you guys are very aware and this makes me very happy.

now, what to do? tell your friends!!! we need to educate on this stuff. i dont want to sound naiive, but i dont want to be wiped out in the next 100 years. I'm pretty sure im a nice guy. i have a great girlfriend and im pretty conciensious..... so how do we go about spreading the word to start some kind of change in the minds of the people that can really make some kind of difference?

i realise theres a lot of big questions there, but i need more people than just me to think aobut htis stuff seriously.

Next week i'm going to the seminar about the hybrid vehicle "evolution". i hope to educate the spokesperson at some point about my own awareness of the petro-hybrid cars futility. maybe he can pass that on... either way its a starting point for me.

lets keep this ball rolling guys!

[Seano]

Next week i'm going to the seminar about the hybrid vehicle "evolution". i hope to educate the spokesperson at some point about my own awareness of the petro-hybrid cars futility. maybe he can pass that on... either way its a starting point for me.

Careful. Petrol hybrid cars are not futile. They are very effective at what they do and are part of the solution. BUT they are only PART (despite what the advertising and hype might say otherwise). There are other possibles....and the diesel option is one........but why does an hybrid car have to use petrol or diesel? Why not ethanol, LPG, CNG etc.

The major problem with the current hybrids is not the technology but the marketing. The marketing imperative says that the product must be sold and it must be positioned such that it excludes all others rather than being inclusive of other transport options (eg. 'petrol hybrid is better than diesel and both are better than a bicycle' which we all know is crap but it can be marketed in a way that says otherwise). The solution is a diversity of options not the one size fits all approach that we currently use to satisfy our energy hunger.

[gldgti]

perhaps futile was too strong an expression...

put it this way - its a gimmick. petrol hybrid cars are no more efficient than my car - less so mostly.

you can get a fiat punto turbo diesel now, with peugot HDI diesel engine that'll get 3.8l/100km.... they're cheap too, much cheaper than a prius or civic hybrid.

they really arent worht the effort, on a grand scale, apart from possible convincing some people to convert from their stupid commodores.

[gldgti]

also...

im fully agreed on the need for diversity in how we use our energy..... but im also pretty against encouraging technologies like petrol hybrid, CNG etc because this is still fossil fuelled - theres no difference. just like using an electric car when you burn coal to make the electricity.

[smithy010]

I reckon centralised emissions (ie, using electric cars, charged from coal powered stations), when staring in the face of continued fossil fuel usage is a better option.
It has to be more efficient,(especially if seemingly wasted off peak energy is used) and it would clean up our cities a lot.

My two bob on this issue

[Edison]

I reckon centralised emissions (ie, using electric cars, charged from coal powered stations), when staring in the face of continued fossil fuel usage is a better option.
I think a bunch of solar panels on the roof is more of a hoot, as you don't bother plugging it in, you just get in and drive, and don't bother looking for a shady spot. Kill the flick of birds with one stone. simple ventilation for the car interior of course, fold down solar panels? whatever...


but it's really only good for long runs- you have to heat it. right?
Nod. I have 5-6 hours driving from my house to sydney where everything else is. nothing else is an option and the only one is perfect.

now i'm happy. all you guys are very aware and this makes me very happy.
Cool, today I'm apathetic, some energy thing, maybe something i didn't eat.

What you guys are doing isn't new discovery, it's simple rediscovery. It is a cycle that you can find has been going for over 100 years. Engineers design, oil companies bury, engineers re-invent the wheel. Fully electric cars were all the rage many times over. I saw a pic of a fleet of 50 2-ton trucks UPS had, the caption 'they set records for economy and reliability' probably like the 20's or 30's. The battery tech is simple Nickel-iron batteries. Do they sound fancy? thats cause they are not, do they work? of course, they have been there done that. when nickel iron batteries get old and die, they don't die, they keep their discharge capactiy, all of it, they simply take longer to charge. It's called an edison cell. you could build them yourself, except sheets of nickel are hard to come by. it's one of the things that has been wiped out same as 20hp DC low voltage motors. oil companies aren't stupid. car companies aren't independent. Why aren't immobilisers compulsory? because replacement cars make a profit too you know.

[shrug] It's like the Maccas manager looking at a bubbler outside his shop on a hot day, you see people happy to drink cold water from a tap, he sees lost sales, and $200 for a vandal as a tiny investment. try finding clean fresh drinking water in a 1st world country and you will wear out your shoes. you could sponsor a well into tank stream in the centre of sydney so we can all have a drink, but the managers will block blow up vandalise or poison (crypto sporidium sound framiliar?) the thing that is killing their profits.

It's like one cow says to the other cow 'i just found out where hamburgers come from' and the other one says 'I don't want to hear your leftwing conspiracy theory crap'.
well, in this case, it's not news to this cow even though it is news to others. me i want to go live in the jungle. and thats what i'll do as soon as im ready ( a couple of years i think)

[Edison]

Careful. Petrol hybrid cars are not futile. They are very effective at what they do and are part of the solution.

they are to shut people up is all. keep them busy so they don't go out and build their own.

Seriously which is better for the majority+enviroment, and which is going to make a profit ? http://xs106.xs.to/xs106/06364/0fgnjxdfnjxfgn0.jpghttp://xs106.xs.to/xs106/06364/sydney3.jpg
do you want the profit from one tram, or all the oil plus all the cars ? hello?

[LS1 Cobra]

I think the future lies in electricity and local power generation. Solar power is the ultimate sorce of all our energy so we may as well go to the source. The world we live in is a system that is almost a closed loop for energy. The only significant external energy input is from the sun and it's a resource we should be looking at tapping directly.

Think about it this way, fossil fuels no matter how they were created all got their energy from the sun. Fields of Canola turned into bio diesel, forests of trees or organic materials broken down into peat and then compressed into coal or into oil beneath the earths surface etc all got the majority of their their energy from the sun.

Solar power is easily converted into electricity. The problem with electricity as an energy source is that moving it from one place to another is not very efficient. Sticking it on a wire from the power station and transmitting it to your home results in a lot of that energy being used up along the way, turned into heat or radiated away. Compare that to the relatively efficient way of transporting of fossil fuel energy, just stick it in a container and carry it from place to another or let it flow down a pipe.

Fossil fuels are also an easy way of storing energy. Again, just stick it in a container and use it when you need it. Unfortunately storing electricity is a lot more complicated and expensive.

I reckon one solution is to have solar cells on the roof of every house and solar and wind farms in rural areas. Run these into an inverter and feed them back into the grid. Power from all these houses could feed most of our energy requirements for industry etc during the day and any excess could be put into storage. But how do you store that electricity cheaply, simply and environmentally ? Batteries? with all the chemicals and heavy metals in them they are an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Not an option for large scale storage in my opinion. How about kinetic storage systems ie use the electricity to pump water to the top of a hill or up a tower and then let it drain back down at night to drive a turbine and generator. Or how about storing it in giant flywheels that spin up during the day and spin down at night.

There may still be a need for conventional power stations to fill the gaps in peak times but they would be much smaller than we have now.

You cant destroy energy, just convert it into a different form. We need to harness that ability and turn it into forms we can use over and over.

Solar cells and wind generators may be expensive now but it's a matter of supply and demand. If there is a requirement for huge numbers of them then there will be investment in ways to make them more efficient and cheap.

Solar cell roof tiles could be a requirment for every new house, along with a water storage tank

At the moment the world is in the grip of the oil companies and fossil fuels. We won't change in a hurry because fossil fuels are relatively cheap and easy. The oil companies, auto companies and industries reliant on these fuels won't change easily especially when they control the governments that make the rules.

The companies want profit, the govenments want power whilst we as the consumers are after the goods and services for the cheapest price. The cost to change will have to be worn by someone, either the prices for goods and services will go up (well that's happening already) or company profits will go down (not likely when they control the governments) or we all pay the price as we destroy our environment.

It seems as though it's all going to be up to us regular citizens to make the moral choices for the environment by choosing sustainable energy sources and the companies that back them.

I'll get off my soap box now.

[brackie]

More people should be standing on soap boxes. Well said!

Strange it all comes back to electricity...hybrid cars, solar cells etc etc. As you say, the problem comes back to, "How do we store it?" The sun is the source of all usable energy on Earth (OK.. we have bacteria in the ocean trenches converting inorganic chemicals from undersea volcanoes into chemical energy, but that isn't really usable by us) so how do we store it? Perhaps electrolysis of water is the answer (yes, seawater is OK and we get salt as a byproduct) so that the hydrogen produced can be stored as a metal hydride or used in a fuel cell. Fuel cell-powered car is still a long way off and hybrids are really only a stopgap. We will still be left with the cost of battery replacement and no way of disposing of the battery material safely.

You're dead right about the convenience and portability of fossil fuels.

[gldgti]

heres a thought:

whats works like a fossil fuel, is cleaner than a fossil fuel, looks like a fossil fuel, but is made from energy from the sun?

biodiesel!

we've been here i know, but remember all that variety stuff? - you guys are all dead right about whats should be happenning, but remember that we will alsways need some "convenience fuel". something to get us form point a to point b where it isnt possible to take your electric car, or when you have too heavy a load to carry.... thats where i see "man made fossil-like fuel" coming into it.

honestly, i'm a believer in all the renewables. all of them! solar being at the top of the list really, closely followed by wind (another freaking obvious one).
but believe me - i really do love the diesel engine - its a piece of engineering that will have uses well after all the oil is gone from the ground....

like we've all been saying - it will take a variety of measures, and no single quick fix will do it.

now, who is going to start lobby-ing? ;-)

[posscakes]

holy moly what a fantastic thread.

i think regardless whatever the political support for it, biodiesel use is getting a lot more widespread. i smell it on the street all the time. theres a commercial biodiesel plant here in adelaide just near my house. it employs about 50 people so it must pump out a fair bit of the stuff (Australian Renewable Fuels) they dont sell it to the small time user though, most of it gets sold to a mob called dermody petroleum, who i think is owned by bp probably gets mixed into blends with petro diesel and sold commercially.

there must be hundreds of different ways to derive and source oil either fresh or recycled to make biodiesel. i think ARF even use animal oil. brackies points about pulling off a canola crop are valid like everything its energy intensive and theres costs involved, but canola is just one way not the only way surely. and yes wouldn't it suck if if tassie's forests all got ripped out and reduced to a canola paddock just so we run our cars???

electric cars???? well i guess if you've got a green source of energy it must be better than petrol surely. also a guy told me today there are ways of charging dead 12 volts in a few seconds it involves using the terminals of a powerful welder? can anyone shed any more light on this? has anyone tried it before. the same guy who told me about the welder trick also told me about this bus that was trialed in germany that had a pertetual motion but i guess thats a whole new thread different sorts of motors etc.

also i once heard about people making acytelene from used aluminium cans and running engines on that. also if anyone hasn't seen it yet mr sharkey on this forum has an interesting website deals with electric & diesel vw worth a look. i think its www.mrsharkey.com if no luck google it.

[brackie]

Fuel cell-powered car is still a long way off .....
Corrrection... GM have one on the road. Apparently it runs on liquid hydrogen stored in cylinders beneath the floor. Looks scary as you all know how cold liquid hydrogen is and what it does to living tissue if it comes in to contact.... I wonder where and how you'd fill up :???: I guess the infrastructure costs would be huge and of course the consumer pays.

[peter_j_g]

Some more biodiesel news...

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finnish+oil+company+Neste+to+invest+billions+in+bi odiesel+production/1135221942460

[brackie]

Where's the feedstock coming from? The commentator made a valid point that China won't sit on her hands and watch accessible palm oil etc. go to Scandanavia. Europe can't supply enough rapeseed to feed it and lard is just a dream. I'm only a Joe and obviously the number crunchers have done their homework, however the cynical side of me and my scant knowledge of the stock market makes me wonder.....
Let's do some sums.
Potatoes in Tassie fetch ~AUD200/tonne at the farm gate. Our ground can grow ~65 tonnes/ha so that's AUD/12,400 per ha before costs. However like most crops this has to be done on a 4 year rotation with lesser value crops occupying the 3 other years so your spuds are really only a AUD3,100 per year crop.
I doubt very much that canola can get anywhere near that figure.
I can graze 350 dairy goats on 50ha of ground for an annual return of ~AUD160,000 (before costs) and that's AUD3,400/ha which compares well with pyrethrum, poppies or any of the commonly grown crops in this region. But I can do it every year without a rotation. Brassicas like rape (canola) too need to be rotated every 4 years so really they're not going to be able to compete with other crops available to the farmer. I doubt very much whether supply will meet demand so we're no better off than we were with dinodiesel.
Any agscientist or economist on this forum please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd love to be :)

[posscakes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Oil_Extraction

check this link out. heres a raw source of oil no ones mentioned in this thread yet.

but yeah i dunno really if its possible to just to replace dino fuel with bio especially if the demand for it just keeps increasing. maybe part of a solution is better fuel efficient technology...

[peter_j_g]

Brackie - Interesting to hear your numbers re various crops/animals. What throws the balance here is the winter, the ground is snow covered for 5-6 months of the year so any livestock has to be housed indoors and hand fed. Hence there are very few livestock farms around due to the winter costs. The most common (=profitable) crops here are wheat, barley, canola, sugarbeet, sunflower and linen.

That an oil company is investing so heavily could be an indication of the future...

Rgds, Peter

[smithy010]

If you have a bit of a read in Joshua Tickell's book "From the fryer to fuel tank", he actually says that the highest yielding crop per ha is algae (a very similar strain to the horrible blue/green algae).
The only problem here, is water. This is ok, because some algae grows well in even brackish/salty water.

It's certainly interesting.

[brackie]

Yeah... During the Mesozoic much of the contribution to oil formation was from unicellular plants and animals. It took time, heat and accumulation in traps to concentrate it though. Dunno how you'd go farming algae. Certainly feasible but whether it could be done on a large enough scale is another thing.

[smithy010]

Need a good source of CO2 for the algae to really go off. Too bad all those stinky CO2 filled road tunnels are in places where there is no space to farm algae.

[posscakes]

heres another high yeilding oil crop. follow the link
http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/jatrophaPlantation.php?_divid=menu2
cheers.

[gldgti]

i think a good source of co2 is a coal fired power station........ dont you?

[gldgti]

or any fuel burning power station for that matter

[brackie]

heres another high yeilding oil crop. follow the link
http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/jatrophaPlantation.php?_divid=menu2
cheers.

Climatic and soil required look ideal for south and central west coastal WA. Farmers are doing it tough over there and should be loooking at it seriously. However, getting the processing plant together may be a big obstacle.

[Moonan]

There is one significant problem with the prospect of growing this wonder-plant in oz - it's a declared noxious weed ("belly-ache bush"). There are many varieties, and not all are actually declared, but importing seeds may not be permitted. According to this thread http://www.biofuelsforum.com/brisbane_biodiesel_users/584-land_wanted_lease_new_crop-3.html in the biofuels website, macadamia would actually do better! Check it out (also interesting on biodiesel in general!

[posscakes]

hmm it'd be nice if farmers had some incentives aka tax breaks if a percentage of there crops went towards bio fuel. but might be a bit far fetched for some folk in canberra... ripped the following from last link.

Adapted from Joshua Tickell, From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to Using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel. 3rd Ed. 2000.
Plant Latin Name Gal Oil/ Acre
Oil Palm Elaeis guineensis 610
Macauba Palm Acrocomia aculeata 461
Pequi Caryocar brasiliense 383
Buriti Palm Mauritia flexuosa 335
Oiticia Licania rigida 307
Coconut Cocos nucifera 276
Avocado Persea americana 270
Brazil Nut Bertholletia excelsa 245
Macadamia Nut Macadamia terniflora 230
Jatropa Jatropha curcas 194
Babassu Palm Orbignya martiana 188
Jojoba Simmondsia chinensis 186
Pecan Carya illinoensis 183
Bacuri Platonia insignis 146
Castor Bean Ricinus communis 145
Gopher Plant Euphorbia lathyris 137
Piassava talea funifera 136
Olive Tree Olea europaea 124
Rapeseed Brassica napus 122
Opium Poppy Papaver somniferum 119
Peanut Ariachis hypogaea 109
Cocoa Theobroma cacao 105
Sunflower Helianthus annuus 98
Tung Oil Tree Aleurites fordii 96
Rice Oriza sativaL. 85
Buffalo Gourd Cucurbita foetidissima 81
Safflower Carthamus tinctorius 80
Crambe Crambe abyssinica 72
Sesame samum indicum 71
Camelina Camelina sativa 60
Mustard Brassica alba 59
Coriander Coriandrum sativum 55
Pumpkin Seed Cucurbita pepo 55
Euphorbia Euphorbia lagascae 54
Hazelnut Corylus avellana 49
Linseed Linum usitatissimum 49
Coffee Coffea arabica 47
Soybean Glycine max 46
Hemp Cannabis sativa 37
Cotton Gossypium hirsutum 33
Calendula Calendula officinalis 31
Kenaf Hibiscus cannabinus L. 28
Rubber Seed Hevea brasiliensis 26
Lupine Lupinus albus 24
Palm Erythea salvadorensis 23
Oat Avena sativa 22
Cashew Nut Anacardium occidentale 18
Corn Zea mays 18

[mollins]

I very much enjoyed this thread when it was active, so i thought i would revive it... and i know this isnt strictly diesel focused but on the topic of alternative fuels...

One of the research teams at work are working on a new fuel called "solar gas", which is energy enriched natural gas. They use a high concentration solar reactor to convert methane into a mixture of CO and H which has 26% more energy than than natural gas. This has many benefits as the gas can be used in a wide range of applications, including transport, as it can run an LPG fitted car.

This provides easily storable and transportable form of solar energy. Which are the major draw backs of solar energy.

more info here:
http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/nsec.htm

http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/images/NSEC_SolarGas%20Benefits.pdf

We should definitely be taking a page out of the european's book in their attitude towards diesel and other alternative fuels. Biodiesel is a great fuel, due to its low emmisions and short carbon cycle. It requires heavy investment to ever make it on a commercial scale, which includes research into cheaper and less land-hungry production.

In regards to solving the energy problems in Australia, i am convinced that there is no single solution. There needs to be a fast transition into a wide range of renewables (wind, solar, biomass), with more localised and integrated production to reduce transmission losses. Natural gas is much more efficient than coal, and should be used as a transitional fuel.

The major setback at the moment is the fact that the fossil fuel companies influence the governments energy policies (the 2006 energy white paper was mostly written by fossil fuel companies). The sooner we get rid of the howard government's coal addiction, the better.
The first step to change is a change in gorvernment.
thats what i think anyway

hehehe

cheers
mike

(as always this is my opinion and in no way am i imposing it on anyone else, or intending to cause offence)

[brackie]

I very much enjoyed this thread when it was active, so i thought i would revive it... and i know this isnt strictly diesel focused but on the topic of alternative fuels...

One of the research teams at work are working on a new fuel called "solar gas", which is energy enriched natural gas. They use a high concentration solar reactor to convert methane into a mixture of CO and H which has 26% more energy than than natural gas. This has many benefits as the gas can be used in a wide range of applications, including transport, as it can run an LPG fitted car.

This provides easily storable and transportable form of solar energy. Which are the major draw backs of solar energy.

more info here:
http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/nsec.htm

http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/images/NSEC_SolarGas%20Benefits.pdf


Exciting stuff! Not really a "use" of solar energy for transport, but a way of enhancing the use of an existing fuel. Biofuels are definitely worth further development even though we know that the Earth doesn't have the capacity to produce enough of them to satisfy demand for transport fuels. Methane can be produced from green waste and fossil natural gasses are plentiful. Any process that would extend the life of their reserves by using "free" solar power would be most welcome.




We should definitely be taking a page out of the european's book in their attitude towards diesel and other alternative fuels. Biodiesel is a great fuel, due to its low emmisions and short carbon cycle. It requires heavy investment to ever make it on a commercial scale, which includes research into cheaper and less land-hungry production.

I've run my Golfs on canola and biodiesel. It's great but not without problems and I think that most of them have been discussed here so I won't go into them again. I'm not happy that I can't use biodiesel in my TDI.


In regards to solving the energy problems in Australia, i am convinced that there is no single solution. There needs to be a fast transition into a wide range of renewables (wind, solar, biomass), with more localised and integrated production to reduce transmission losses. Natural gas is much more efficient than coal, and should be used as a transitional fuel.
The problem with CNG is that it must be compressed and the cylinders that store it must therefore be strong and heavy. Researchers must work on a way to solve this.


The major setback at the moment is the fact that the fossil fuel companies influence the governments energy policies (the 2006 energy white paper was mostly written by fossil fuel companies). The sooner we get rid of the howard government's coal addiction, the better.
The first step to change is a change in gorvernment.
thats what i think anyway

I don't think it really matters which of our two alternative governments is in. I reckon that even if the Greens won government j: the country's reliance on coal exports and excise from fuel would remain and nothing would change. At least the Feds recognise that "clean coal" technology is worth pursuing although if they think that geosequestration will work they are dreaming (sorry, my geology background coming out again :( ). What this is all about really is money and who pays? ;)


hehehe

cheers
mike

(as always this is my opinion and in no way am i imposing it on anyone else, or intending to cause offence)
Just my opinion too.

[Seano]

If anyone would like to comment on the National Standards for diesel & biodiesel blends then I suggest you visit http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/diesel-biodiesel-discussion-paper.html

It was released in November last year and is 130 pages long (but a very small download) and public submissions are due tomorrow 5th Jan 2007

[gldgti]

[QUOTE=brackie] Biofuels are definitely worth further development even though we know that the Earth doesn't have the capacity to produce enough of them to satisfy demand for transport fuels.


dont be so sure.... Sir Richard Branson has recently released a statement confirming that all of the profits for the next 10 years from Virgins transport related companies will be used in research into biofuels, with particular emphasis on air travel....


just something I thought was interesting

[brackie]

No. I'm not sure. And I don't think that anybody really is. Common sense would tell me that if fossil hydrocarbons are highly concentrated products of organic matter, heat and a hell of a lot of time, the one thing we don't have is the millions of years necessary to manufacture a product on the scale necessary to replace them by using biofuels. We just don't have the arable land.
Richard Branson is a shrewd businessman, to a degree a philanthropist and also an eccentric. I think we must look a little deeper behind the reasons for his commitment.

[gldgti]

No. I'm not sure. And I don't think that anybody really is. Common sense would tell me that if fossil hydrocarbons are highly concentrated products of organic matter, heat and a hell of a lot of time, the one thing we don't have is the millions of years necessary to manufacture a product on the scale necessary to replace them by using biofuels. We just don't have the arable land.
Richard Branson is a shrewd businessman, to a degree a philanthropist and also an eccentric. I think we must look a little deeper behind the reasons for his commitment.

certainly this is true for all the alternatives we've discussed..... but what about algae? im not suggesting any kind of miracle cure with algae, but there are pilot plants being set up in the US and plans to biuld literally square kilometres of algae ponds in thailand outside power stations to suck up CO2... theres gotta be something in it. my dad is convinced of it, and he's been looking into it for years. maybe millions of years of plant evolution can make up for the time we dont have...

[gldgti]

I don't think it really matters which of our two alternative governments is in. I reckon that even if the Greens won government j: the country's reliance on coal exports and excise from fuel would remain and nothing would change. At least the Feds recognise that "clean coal" technology is worth pursuing although if they think that geosequestration will work they are dreaming (sorry, my geology background coming out again :( ). What this is all about really is money and who pays? ;)


I think if the Libs get in again I'll have to become a terrorist myself! i believe we need a change, and im not convinced we can avoid nuclear power if howard sees another term..... and we MUST AVOID NUCLEAR.... for my kids sake (who i havnt got yet) and theirs, and theirs etc.

[gldgti]

oh yeah, and i reckon geosequestration is a total crock too..... what idiots!

[brackie]

certainly this is true for all the alternatives we've discussed..... but what about algae? im not suggesting any kind of miracle cure with algae, but there are pilot plants being set up in the US and plans to biuld literally square kilometres of algae ponds in thailand outside power stations to suck up CO2... theres gotta be something in it. my dad is convinced of it, and he's been looking into it for years. maybe millions of years of plant evolution can make up for the time we dont have...

We wouldn't need to help evolution along too much. The plankton that was manufacturing and storing oil was doing it pretty well during the Mesozoic and before. Perhaps a little genetic engineering would help.

The key is money. Don't think that even if we could get plankton farms happening it would bring down the price of fuel. Governments and national economies are driven by profit, and corporations and tax gatherers would make damned sure that the price didn't go down. If anything, they would increase it saying, "If you really care about the environment then you'll pay the extra" (even if they could produce it more cheaply).

Resurrected thread :)

[gldgti]

i dont think algae would bring down the price of fuel either - but it may set a new benchmark for fuel prices.

imagine we do use algae to suck up carbon - then we're talking about millions of tonnes of algae. thats a good feedstock for oil based fuel, like biodiesel. i realise that that would also defeat the purpose of growing it to suck up the carbon, but then you dont have to make fuel out of all of it, most could be buried.

[vinderliker]

We wouldn't need to help evolution along too much. The plankton that was manufacturing and storing oil was doing it pretty well during the Mesozoic and before. Perhaps a little genetic engineering would help.

The key is money. Don't think that even if we could get plankton farms happening it would bring down the price of fuel. Governments and national economies are driven by profit, and corporations and tax gatherers would make damned sure that the price didn't go down. If anything, they would increase it saying, "If you really care about the environment then you'll pay the extra" (even if they could produce it more cheaply).

Resurrected thread :)

Hmmm genetic engineering, playing with fire perhaps. To recreate the the natural process in small scale lab experiments should be feasable (the boffins created in a glass dome the building blocks of life using basic proteins etc with gases and electrical current{lightning replecation} to get the 'primordial soup'). But to genetically engineer the right conditions to produce the base for fossil fuels I feel is a long way off, nigh impossible regarding the immense pressures and time taken to make the brew we need to refine to get the end product. Then we have to look at the CO2 problem. I agree with Brackie with the underground hidy hole method will not work.

[brackie]

No.. I wasn't suggesting that we try to replicate the whole process, just genetically engineer the algae so that it enhances oil production/capacity.

Back to geosequestration. It would only work if the CO2 was injected into a sealed structure. This basically means that geologists would have to find sealed structures (anticlines, fault traps, unconformities etc) that would stop the gas migrating upwards and back into the atmosphere. These do exist.... after all they trap the oil and natural gas that we are currently running out of. The problem would be getting the CO2 from where it's produced to abandoned oil and gas fields that are usually very distant.
I also have my doubts regarding how long it would stay there. CO2 is quite soluble and would find its way into water traveling through voids in the rock and so escape. The seals would have to be very good indeed!

[vinderliker]

Sorry my misinterpretation. I'm still not convinced on the development of 'super algae'. Although I am a strong one for evolution, I feel that speeding up or fiddling with the natural process is a bit risky i.e cloning of animals and canola etc. Ok there have been some successes, Darwin and his Pea plants, pets(some breeds do have genetic problems), tritacale and some others I can't remember. I know it sounds as if I am contradicting myself. But hey you can't be right all the time and a cautious approch should be taken when fiddling the well proven natural genetic code.

[Edison]

I'm certain we won't need to help nature put an end to the problem of humanity, We will all be wiped out and it'll mop up most of the damage.
Algae may well take over, all by itself, in no time at all, the global warming thing has been played down with enormous success and is so much worse than youd think, that'll be revealed quite soon. the whole global weather system will flip over into something much much less liveable. There is a limit to the fossil carbon that can be pumped into the 'sphere without effect. anyhow I hope to be hidden in a mountain somewhere by then, like the highlands of new guinea which people just couldn't reach till a hundred years ago or so...

[Edison]

Richard Branson is a shrewd businessman, to a degree a philanthropist and also an eccentric. I think we must look a little deeper behind the reasons for his commitment.
It leads to a perfect advertisment, fly virgin and keep the air clean? fly Vgn and keep the skys that way? fly the clean virgin way? whatever, you get the picture, he can finally give people what they want everywhere else in life, through his airline... cool marketing, and worth a big investment too.


..... and we MUST AVOID NUCLEAR.... for my kids sake (who i havnt got yet) and theirs, and theirs etc..
The nuclear crap already here will end all of humanity, about 1000 years (according to revelation, and also scientific guessing) after the fall of the western empire. This empire must by the laws of the universe come to an end, as all empires always have. once it does those millions of barrels of radioactive waste in basments, carparks, swimming pools and nuke silos will have escaped their corroded containers and washed out into the enviroment, and into the food chain wiping out mammals from the largest progressively to the smallest starting with predators which are higher up the food chain and collect more in their bodies... blah blah blah [kicking myself in the pants for being off topic ]
I obviously hope my decendants are still up the mountain with bones through their noses and spears in hand, but they aren't going to address the problem, no-one can/will by that time, now is the only time, and the whole point of capitalism is to completely destroy everything that God made.

[posscakes]

look i agree vw should take a leap out of the peugeot book and produce some push bikes...

[gldgti]

Sorry my misinterpretation. I'm still not convinced on the development of 'super algae'. Although I am a strong one for evolution, I feel that speeding up or fiddling with the natural process is a bit risky i.e cloning of animals and canola etc. Ok there have been some successes, Darwin and his Pea plants, pets(some breeds do have genetic problems), tritacale and some others I can't remember. I know it sounds as if I am contradicting myself. But hey you can't be right all the time and a cautious approch should be taken when fiddling the well proven natural genetic code.

super algae not really needed...

some strains of algae are 90% by weight oil that takes minimal processing to be used as a fuel.... it just a matter of investment really.

i'd rather put the money it would cost for genetic reseach into building algae farms - seems a far more useful thing to do!

[gldgti]

I obviously hope my decendants are still up the mountain with bones through their noses and spears in hand, but they aren't going to address the problem, no-one can/will by that time, now is the only time, and the whole point of capitalism is to completely destroy everything that God made.


amen to that. careful, asio might be sniffing around, and we'll be branded terrorists and taken to cuba for a nice long holiday (off topic i know i know)

anyway.... i think its almost time for a beer.

[gldgti]

The nuclear crap already here will end all of humanity, about 1000 years (according to revelation, and also scientific guessing) after the fall of the western empire.

i saw an interesting show on ABC on sunday morning - it was all about Newton (Izaac, not bert ;-) )

apparently he reckoned the world will end in 2060!

[Edison]

amen to that. careful, asio might be sniffing around, and we'll be branded terrorists and taken to cuba for a nice long holiday

Cuba? oh I wish. cuba doesn't torture people, they fix you for free (free cataract operations regardless of who you are what your immigration status is, free, for everyone, i mean everyone. they send docs to other countries for free too)
you mean guantanamo, america, the torture capital of the universe, with baxter woomera villawood paling by comparison.
I don't care cause living as subsistance farmers up a mountain isn't going to interest anyone unless your on a mineral deposit.
If you know what looks like prey to them you can simply be the precise opposite, be a farmer reather then an activist, if they have time to come after you for farming hand to mouth they can't last long with such poor managment of their resources.
If a tiger comes to your door you don't actually need to fight it hand to hand, you can leave the door shut, and move a week later.
It's like my cure for airsickness and seasickness, it's foolproof. I just sit under a tree for a while and it passes.

One thing nobody ever prepares for is the fall of the empire. You'll be off to work tomorrow and thats how everyone dissapears into history like the myans incans... whoever.

Argh ! that does it I have to kick myself off the forum for being offtopic repeatedly. A suspension is in order, I think I'll ban myself from calling again for a day or two 8-)