There is always the option of a crackdown on home brew biodiesel producers.
Based on past ATO performance, it is unlikely that you would be targeted by the ATO for non-payment of excise, unless you were producing for sale or if your production volumes were significant (>1000 liters per week?, More?), regardless if you were selling or not.

The costs of prosecuting excise defaulters would be costly and while you would get a fine and probably a penalty of 2 times the excise defaulted on, unless you were making lots, it would not cover the legal costs of the prosecution, let alone provide positive PR for the ATO.

Regards,
Tony

Yes, full testing of all parameters from a single sample is $2500 here. I should also mention it is also quicker getting your results back from the US than from within Australia.
Even biodiesel for personal use is required to be tested. We have labs in every TAFE and Uni in Australia so why can't we do basic testing locally? Why do we need to do a $500 Cetane test when we know that biodiesel from any feedstock will have a higher Cetane than petroleum diesel? Why if we pass a conversion test do we still have to spend more money to perform a viscosity test when we know if you pass the first one you will always pass the second test?
I have tried challenging the authorities on many points but you don't get anywhere. They don't care. They just enforce policy even if it is full of faults.
We should not have a situation in this country where government policy forces hundreds of people around the country, perhaps even thousands, to discreetly make their contraband biodiesel in their backsheds on the quiet because the laws as they stand virtually make it all but illegal.

Does anyone know which specific policy they are enforcing. It is my experience that most legilsation has loop holes in it so the government can get itself out of any sticky situation if it arises.
I know the ACCC is a gutless wonder, but surely with only one lab charging such rediculous somes of money sould be grounds for some sort of complaint.
I thought the ATO said that it had to be a "approved lab or equivelant", so whats the equivelant?
What would be nice is some sort of machine that you can put a sample into, let it process and it spits out a pass/fail result that the Govt. would accept, bit like brake tests on vehicles when you get them registered.
Perhaps some tackfully carefully worded petitioning to Penny Wong and Peter Garrett more along the line that these laws are "restricting the Australian community from effectivley moving to a carbon credit system and making Australia a Carbon Neutral society" and that "Unless these draconian laws are changed, Australia will be stuck in the fossil fuel dependant polluting dark ages".

Hello pyro2b
Please do it mate...start a petition for the pollies. I don't have the patience to deal with them.
It would be really funny if it wasn't so serious, that is, the Australian Standard is based pretty much entirely on the American AS6751 standard so when I send a sample to the US for testing they are testing according to the AS6751 and when you send a sample to an Aust lab their testing is also based on the AS6751 so you can compare apples with apples. Anyway, the tax dept have told me that they wouldn't accept testing from the US because the labs there wouldn't be a member of NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) Australia.
WTF....we took our Standard from the Americans but now they are not good enough to get our testing done there. This is the kind of nonsense we have to put up with from our public servants.

What is the ultimate point for this testing (despite protecting oil companies)? I mean if transestrification conversion is not done properly, you will be burning a mixture of SVO/WVO & Bio. Using SVO and Bio is more environmentally freindly than Dino, so whats it matter if it's not fully upto spec, it's not like the Govt is warrenting our vehicles for engine damage.

On a side note; being a newbie and having a scientific background, I am diligently exploring all facets of this technology before jumping in (currently have a LPG vehicle but considering upgrading to a diesel). I have just finnished my first experimental evaluation of the transestrification process, using Acid/Base with triple wash. My first batch passed wash test but not 23/7 methanol test, so I re-processed and I have beautiful results. I have cooled my Bio down to -3.7 degrees celcius and it was still clear and fluid, started to cloud at -4.7 degrees celcius beyond wich it turned to a semi-fluid soild.

Because we a living in a Nanny state and the Govt thinks it has a responsibility to protect you from yourself.

My attempt... (What do you think?)


The Hon. Peter Garrett,
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts,
PO Box 249
Maroubra NSW 2035,

CC: Seanator the Hon. Penny Wong





Dear Mr. Garrett,


I am writing to you, as minister responsible for the Environment, seeking your urgent assistance in a matter which has the potential to derail many of the goals that you and your government are working towards with regards to protecting our fragile environment.

I am referring to the current situation with the ATO’s requirements for biofuels, specifically the requirements for testing of each batch by a NATA laboratory and the complicated system for claiming back the excise.

Over the last few months I have been investigating the options for transferring vehicles to a carbon neutral system, in keeping with the Rudd Government’s stance on climate change. I see biofuels as playing a paramount role in enabling this to happen, and putting Australia to the top of the field as far as reducing greenhouse emissions.

Currently, anyone; a farmer, a teacher, a environmentalist or even a politician, who wants to make a clean green biofuel for use in their vehicle, so that the can do their part for the environment, must obtain a manufacturer’s license from the ATO. After which, they can start manufacturing their own biofuel, however there are a few conditions that make this environmentally responsible option not viable.
The ATO requires that $0.38143 per liter be paid to the ATO as excise tax, and that ever batch produced must be tested by a government certified NATA accredited laboratory. It is my understanding that there is only 1 such laboratory in the whole of Australia that private individuals have access to that can undertake the complete range of tests the ATO requires. The fee for this service is $2500.00 and the ATO require that ever batch of fuel be tested, regardless if the rebate on excise is claimed or not.

Now for a large multi-national oil refinery making 100,000 batches, this cost only equates to $0.025 per liter, but for the typical average individual who wants to do their part for the environment and will only be producing around 1 tank of fuel per week, this fee works out to be $41.67 per liter, on top of that there is the required excise fee, and the cost of manufacture. Now yes it is a great idea that the ATO is offering a rebate on biofuels made, however after hearing reports from individuals, the ATO seems to look for any idiosyncrasy to avoid paying back the rebate.

Let’s take a look at this case study:

I have just recently worked through this with a farmer, who was considering planting part of his land with rapeseed to produce biodiesel to make the operation of his small scale farm as carbon neutral as he possible could.

His estimated average use of diesel is between 80 to 120 liters per week, and he was considering making one 200L batch every few weeks. It is averaged that his 12 month usage would be around 5000L.

Rapeseed yields around 480 liters per acre of oil, and the farmer estimated that he would need to plant 11 acres and it would cost him around $1200 all up from preparation to harvest. ($0.23 per L)

He was looking to invest around $6000 in equipment to harvest, press oil and convert to biodiesel, and was hoping to recoup costs over a three year period. ($0.40 per L)

The cost of conversion of the rapeseed oil to biodiesel is estimated at $76.00 per batch at current market prices of ingredients. ($0.38 per L)

ATO Excise per batch $76.29 ($0.38143 per L)

ATO Rebate (if obtained) per batch $76.29 ($0.38143 per L)

Compulsory ATO testing requirements $2500 per batch ($12.50 per liter)

Cost per liter WITHOUT rebate: $13.89 per L

Cost per liter with rebate: $13.51 per L

Current price of Fossil Fuel Diesel $1.859 per L

If the requirements of the ATO were dropped altogether, the cost of manufacture for this farmer would drop to $1.01 per L, making it 45.5% cheaper to take the environmentally responsible option as opposed to the fossile fuel alternative.

As you can see, even if current diesel prices are to go up sevenfold, it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels, rather than taking the environmentally responsible option. If the current Government wants people to make environmentally responsible choices, they need to remove the barriers that are financially burdening these people making the right decision.

The testing that the ATO is requesting, achieves no purpose in this scenario, and relates mainly to the quality of the fuel with reference to petroleum based diesel. Where fuel is being produced in tonnage quantities by commercial entities for sale to the public, I agree that their is a requirement for the protection of the public, that they are buying a product manufactured to an approved standard, but this is not a necessity foir the individual trying to do his or her part for the environment

Many people who would peruse this avenue are likely to test their fuel and monitor its quality closely, as the continuing operation of their vehicle without fault depends on it. There are simple to do at home tests that many people in the biofules community around the world have developed to test their fuel to see if it is of a high enough standard to be used in vehicles. These tests are simple, cheap and able to be done by the user at home to ensure that he or she is doing the job properly.

When Rudolf Diesel invented his motor, petroleum based diesel was not commercially available, and he initially ran his motor on plant based oils such as peanut oil. Requiring the testing to determine the effectiveness of converting vegetable oils to their methyl ester is superfluous step, because the diesel motor can run on both the raw oil and the converted product. The cetane test is pointless as all food based oils have a cetane value higher than that of diesel, and their methyl esters also have a higher cetane value. As far as this has to do with pollution both straight vegetable oil and biodiesel have cleaner emissions compared to that of petroleum based diesel, so testing on these grounds is also pointless.

I believe to move Australia forward to a carbon neutral fuel nation, we need to:

1) Remove the requirements of needing small scale private producers to get biofuel batches tested at a NATA laboratory

2) Remove the bureaucracy of having to pay and then claim back excise, and just exempt small scale private producers from any biofuel excise in the first place.

3) Offer Government incentives for small private biofuel producers to upgrade their operations and knowledge to produce better quality fuels


I am writing to you to ask that you please make these necessary changes so that people who want to save our plant and move to a carbon neutral way of life, are not penalized for trying to do so, I hope you can understand the point that I am trying to make and I look forward to further correspondence with you.


Yours faithfully,

Good work Pyro, send it off! It might also be worth mentioning that in the UK a year or so ago they passed legislation to allow small producers to make a certain amount (up to 2000L/year I think) excise free. That would be a good example to follow.

__________________
Sean

Pangit,

Good point, I will definitely add that in before sending.

Good one Pyro and good luck with the letter. You've done a better job than I could have done.
I have recently been communicating with a few labs in the US to see if I can find one that is accredited as required by our ATO. They all seem to be both confused and amused in that they already test biodiesel to a standard....the ASTM6751 Standard guidelines.....so what more do you want they ask. By the way, ASTM stands for American Society for Testing and Materials and is an International standards organisation.