Originally Posted by Robert on 31st October 2007 at 12:44 PM

Re: Election 07 and biofuels - submission to parties
The food vs fuel debate is a big issue, as is the expense the environment bears when free enterprise takes the most expedient methods and destroys rainforest for palm oil plantations. It is unfortunate that people/the media so easily polarise issue into good or bad. At the moment biofuels are bad. It has also been said that only home produced biodiesel is OK and all the commercially produced stuff is worse than burning fossil fuel.
This is way too simplistic and as intelligent people we need to be more considered.

The ABU has been quite clear to point out that we only support the good kind of biofuels, and I've been sure to post our goals from our constitution prominently on our website under the "about us" section here. I have also tried to stress this in a few places within the submission to the parties.

It is critical that biofuels are promoted as a PART of the solution, not the whole solution. Other measures will still need to be looked at such as vehicle fuel efficiency, public transport, electrification, solar, better urban planning, lifestyle changes etc (and that's just the transport sector). I have chosen to focus my efforts on the biofuels part of the picture as I see it as something good that I can attempt.

Yesterday I did an interview for SBS radio about this topic and I was quite clear to stress that biofuels had negative aspects when not applied correctly and that more considered decisions needed to be made. I also stressed that it was only one thing that we could do now while we wait for things like electrification and other cleaner alternatives. I've also stressed the same thing in the various presentations I've done.


Some places like the US and the EU are offering huge subsidies for biofuels in the interests of "energy security" (as "Peak Oil" is too scary a term for the masses). While I applaud the idea that biofuels are finally being embraced and encouraged, I am equally appalled at the problems their implementation of biofuels are causing. I agree that biofuels should be funded and encouraged, but not for the wrong reasons.

So will I just say that biofuels used to be good until they got all commercialised and now that they are being taken over by Big Oil, they're all worse than fossil fuel? Will I say that only home produced biodiesel is environmentally friendly? No.

I am trying to focus on what we can do now and into the future. One of the main projects that I have been wanting to get off the ground since before the ABU was started was some sort of consumer confidence program so that the end user could get information from commercial suppliers about where their fuel came from, its quality and most importantly if it was obtained and produced in a sustainable and socially responsible way. This was to aid consumers (ie. many of the users in here) but also to try to keep the industry honest. That's one example of something that could be done now.

Examples of things that can be done in the future: It is well known and obvious that there is just not enough agriculture in the world to supply any decent portion of our current fuel needs without competing for food. In fact even if we all starved and turned all our crops into fuel, we'd still not have enough. However, there are many "2nd generation" crops and production technologies that could do significantly better and not compete with food or land and not produce at the expense of the environment. These are the things that investment and planning need to go into right now!

There are 20-30 million hectares of land in Australia that does not touch the rainforest or the that wheat belt where we could grow crops like Pongam, Indian Mustard and Jatropha (not the variety that is banned in Oz). If only a small fraction of this were used we could supply 50% of Australia's diesel needs. Also, there are other promising feedstocks like algae. There are exiting developments with ethanol production as well that could see garden waste or almost any biomass being converted to fuel in a very energy efficient way. There are solid catalysts and plasma reaction technologies for biodiesel. The point is that the future is bright if we make the right decisions now.

If we all sit on our hands complaining about how the government does nothing and knows nothing and how private enterprise always exploits the people and the environment for their own profits and how big oil conspires to keep their status quo, then it will only get worse. We can't change much, but we can certainly try and if we don't even try, then we are just as bad as those that we are complaining about. </end rant>

Originally Posted by Robert

Also, remember that in Australia, there are certain key politicians who hold balance of power possibilities and are very pro biofuels, usually for reasons of the farmers. While I like the idea that these people if they get the votes could get a better mix of biofuels happening in Australia, the methods are questionable.

For example, some have promised a massive increase in the use of QLD sugar cane for ethanol with a target of around E40 (I think) for all of Australia's fuel. It is well known that "1st generation" ethanol production has a very poor energy balance - that is it takes as much or more energy to produce it than it provides in a car, giving a net carbon loss. Also, it is well accepted that sugar cane farming has caused and is causing bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.

These are good examples of why we need to know about these issues and we all need to do our part to attempt to educate people (especially the politicians pre election) in whatever way we can.

Originally Posted by Liquidgold on 31st October 2007, 09:02 PM

What is the point of this thread Australian government reguardless of who runs it is 1000% GROUND FUEL reliant

Originally Posted by Tony from West Oz on 31st October 2007, 09:46 PM

And so, we should shut up and fall in line with the other plebs?

Not bloody likely, we need to get out there and make others aware of the possibilities, apply pressure so that the Pollies get the message that the aussie public want to have sustainable bio-fuels available. That sustainable bio-fuels can make significant contribution to transport fuels and rediuce the import of petroleum products, and help our balance of trade and many other advantages.

If we son't say something, then we deserve what we get.

Originally Posted by Robert on 1st November 2007, 03:13 PM

OK. I've posted up a PDF on the ABU site (not yet linked except from here). This is the version that takes as much as I can from all the comments I've got from everyone (both online and offline), but is still as clear and succinct as it can be.
Anyone know where I can send it....?

On 2nd November 2007, 12:04 AM: OK, it's complete now and has been sent to every political party (except the small handful who provided no website or email and I think they hardly matter).
Hopefully there will be some responses and if so, I will be sure to publish them.

Originally Posted by Morris on 2nd November 2007, 06:16 AM

Good work Robert,

Although the publication of this query may not result in the reversal of current anti-renewable policies, it certainly lends more weight to the additional pressure that is developing.

According to unnamed inside sources, DEH is in the process of limiting Biodiesel blends to B5, this will effectively destroy the market.
Government is, after the Fuel Tax changes in July 06, and now the potential restrictions on blends, doing just about everything they can do to keep Biodiesel as an alternative fuel.

The evidence, submissions, foreign markets, and common sense contradict the DEH initiative, but reality appears to have little effect on the governmental body appointed to protect us from ourselves.

Originally Posted by Robert on 14th November 2007, 03:13 PM

Well, I've got the first response back yesterday, not surprisingly, the Greens seem to already have policy regarding biofuels and sustainability. They've provided detailed answers to the questions. Now I just have to collect some other responses.

Meanwhile Mark Vaile has suddenly got lots of media spruiking some bold new ideas about biofuels. He's using some good buzzwords, like "2nd generation" (I wonder what brought this to his attention). He's also promising that if re-elected he can spend $6M on a trial to see if B20 can be used in heavy vehicle engines - apparently he claims that no one knows this at the moment...?

This comes just off the back of news that funding is being pulled from the 3rd big commercial Australian biodiesel producer after the last 2 shut down blaming government indifference - the same one that's telling the media how they'll throw arbitrary money at whatever seems a good cause at the time.

I've posted up the details so far here.

Originally Posted by Terry Syd on 14th November 2007, 05:03 PM

There goes 6 million into the pockets of 'those in the know'. What a joke. I could give them a few names to contact that have been running trucks for years on B100. One fellow has used nothing but low-conversion biodiesel for the last 6 years in his Hino.

Everytime biodiesel becomes an issue in a country there is always some group that puts its hands up for funding to run more tests. What, they can't read existing test results from all the other countries that have done their tests? How about contacting American cities that have mandated B20 for bus fleets - give them a phone call, I'll pay for it!

Hey, isn't Willie Nelson's group 'Bio-Willie' selling B20 at the pumps to longhaul truckers in the States? Why not just have dinner at one of the diners and have a yarn with the truckers?

I put odds on this that it will be primarily a 'desk top' study of existing literature and will have cost overruns of at least 50% - and take 3 years to complete.

Originally Posted by David

Before you arrived at the Bio picnic Terry, a few of us were confronted by the Council Rangers concerned that Dave westwinds stainless steel mixing tank was actually a super size beer keg.

When we told them what we were actually there for, they told us the local council had been running all its trucks on Bio ( don't remember if they said anything about straight or blend) for 2 or 3 years. I believe Camden amongst other councils were also doing it. I don't think these councils would charge anything like $6m to open their experiences with a govt department to fill them in on the practicality of using BD.

Maybe I should get to the dept. with the $6M and offer to help them out. I don't mind driving the kids to school in a prime mover if they provide it and the fuel for me to help them with their trials.

Maybe I should nominate myself as a supplier of certified Bio? I'll use double everything to make sure its high conversion, wash it to within an inch of its life, dry it like the Simpson desert and charge them 8 bux a liter for the " test grade" fuel I supply them.

Lets face it, someone is going to have a lot of this money lining their pockets, may as well be me as anyone else!

Originally Posted by Robert on 14th November 2007, 07:19 PM

Terry, David, you've got my vote. Also, the Democrats have just given me a good response, which I have now posted up. So far only the Greens and the Democrats have given the ABU outlines of their biofuel policies. Both of them seem to have a pretty good idea.

Today I have tried to directly contact Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Garrett via their offices and websites to see if they can give me an answer to fill the lack of communication that their parties have given. I figured that they are both holding Environment portfolios, so they should make an effort to care about this issue. We'll see if they can give out some responses.

Meanwhile the Nationals have not answered, but they have emailed a few times asking that the questions be sent to different addresses. Obviously judging from their media releases, they have seen the questions, they've just not seen fit to answer them. They have however seen fit to answer them in the media, so myself and some others will be seeking to get some of our own media releases out to rebut the policies raised by the Nationals so far.

Originally Posted by Terry on 17th November 2007, 10:28 PM

I thought Peter Garrett might be a good link into the system at one time, but after I tried contacting him and he didn't even bother to send me an acknowledgement of the correspondence, I figured he has 'gone with the flow' of Oz politics.

I expect that I will be tearing up my ballot again this election. If the system only allowed those people who gave a s--t about the results to vote, then I would saddle up. However, when it is compulsary for everyone to vote, then it becomes a nonsense for me to pitch my single vote against at least 100 un-informed d--kheads that only vote according to the last 15 second sound bite they saw.

I'll be showing up early to get it over with, then go home and make some biodiesel.

Originally Posted by Robert on 18th November 2007, 09:46 AM

Don't do that! If you give it to either of the 2 minor parties that said they support home biodiesel production, then they won't win, but they might just get enough power to influence the passage of future legislation in the senate. If all the informed people didn't vote, then we'd really be at the mercy of the great ignorant masses who do vote on sound bytes and advertising. The balance of power in the senate is a very important thing and currently one of the two major parties (who get significant donations from the fossil interests) holds that balance - no wonder things are getting worse.

Originally Posted by Terry on 18th November 2007, 01:33 PM

I flipped a coin, it came up Greens.

We're all doomed.

Originally Posted by gsmiley on 18th November 2007, 01:42 PM

Terry: Guess the uninformed d***heads will continue to write the program.

Originally Posted by Terry Syd

. I figure we'll know in about six months whether it is 'business as usual'.