“Ethanol Biofuel is Uneconomic, Unsustainable and Un-green.”

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to all government promotion and subsidies for the domestic production of ethanol.

The Chairman of 'Carbon Sense', Mr Viv Forbes, said that all taxpayers, all consumers of food and most farmers will be harmed by the creation of an artificial industry producing subsidised ethanol.

"Subsidising the production of ethanol will waste taxes, harm the environment, cause sharply increased costs for everyone in the food chain, and do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or air pollution.

"Many people think that ethanol production will provide wins for the whole community – farmers, the community and the environment. But there is no free lunch.

"As usual with government promotions, the benefits are obvious but the costs are hidden.

"Most of the benefits will go to large corporations set up to harvest ethanol subsidies, and some will trickle down to those growing cereals and sugar cane – they will get higher prices for their products than they would otherwise.

"The majority of farmers will be losers – all those using grains or molasses for supplementary feeding of cattle, horses, chooks, sheep and pigs will see their feed prices increase – this has already happened in America.

"Higher prices for grains and sugar will then pass thru farms, feedlots and factories to show up as rising costs for cereals, bacon, eggs, milk, meat and all sweets – a hidden ethanol tax on every breakfast table.

"In addition, the inevitable government subsidies or tax breaks for ethanol will consume tax dollars, giving higher taxes for tax payers or lower services for tax consumers.

"Then there are environmental costs. We will use heaps of diesel tractor fuel to bring marginal land, either grassland or bush, into a dead mono-culture of cereals or cane. (Professor Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York has calculated that each car would need 1-2 hectares of pasture to produce its motor fuel in this inefficient way.) And the excessive cultivation and chemical fertilisers used will reduce the soil organic matter and produce - - - - - more greenhouse gases.

"Then when we burn ethanol in cars, we get the same old dreaded greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide – releasing exactly the same amount of these gases as were removed from the environment by the growing plant a few months before.

"Moreover, the cultivation, harvesting, transport and processing of the ethanol inputs adds more pollutants to the atmosphere – in fact, careful energy audits show that there is less energy in a gallon of ethanol than is required to produce it from plant material (see reference below).

"And what do we do in times of drought – burn our cereals and sugar in ethanol cars and import food to eat?

"Finally, who pays for the damage or modifications required to many engines to allow them to use ethanol?

"If people think ethanol can be produced profitably in a competitive market with no tax breaks or subsidies, they should be free to try with their own dollars.

"But taxpayers and consumers should not be forced to subsidise the ethanol industry – any full audit will show that the costs outweigh the benefits.

"If the government wants to increase energy security or reduce the price of motor fuel they should remove all the barriers to exploring for oil in Australia or producing gas or liquid fuels from Australian coals."

It is not impossible to economically produce biofuels for petrol engines as Viv Forbes would have us believe.

It can be done by using radically different feedstocks other than cereals and sugar cane.

In 1980, Professor Melvin Calvin (Nobel Prize winner) and others since have adequately demonstrated that there are plants that have a latex type of sap, often Euphorbia genera, that can easilly have a fuel extracted by a three stage solvent extraction process.

These types of plants are suited to the semi-arid areas of inland Australia.

It is conceivable that places like Longreach, Cunnamulla, Bedouri, etc could have a thriving bio-fuel industry.

The extraction plants, once started, would be self-fueling using the solid waste.

An industry like this would not impact on food or grain prices.

I have serious doubts about the economic and environmental sustainabilty of biodiesel plants which utilise food crops to produce an energy source.

The diversion of food crops to energy production is already causing concern internationally, and this before biodiesel has gained enough of a market share to make any real contribution to mitigating greenhouse emmissions.

I believe the future for biodiesel lies in the adoption of non-edible oil crops such as Pongamia pinnata - Honge oil and Moringa oleifera - the Drumstick tree.

They do well on marginal land, with poor soils and low rainfall, are tough and resilient and well adapted to climate challenges.

The agronomics and technology of biodiesel production from these and a handful of other non-edible oil crops have been proven in India and are attracting increasing interest from the biggest interantional players in the emerging biodiesel industry.

These perennial crops do not displace or compete with food crops, do not inflate oilseed prices, yield much more energy than annual crops (ca. 10 units of energy out for every unit in compared with ca. 2.5:1 for sunflowers) and are ideal energy crops for isolated communities.

Earth Equity Pty Ltd has been established to promote the development of a clean, efficient and profitable biodiesel industry based on non-edible oils.

We are currently seeking expressions of interest from growers interested in establishing trial plantings of Pongamia and Moringa and contributing to this development.

Contact Peter Gould at peter_terania@hotmail.com for more information.

I hope this topic really flies as I am convinced it is a major part of the answer to the climate change challenge and the decisions we make right now will determine whether or not its true potential is realised.

Peter Gould

If fuel is used to grow the soybean, sunflower and canola feedstock, transport it and transport the final product, the energy returned after processing in the $50 million factory will be minimal or negative.

On these grounds, the chances of a long term industry and return on investment are poor.

Further, why bother?

World grain prices are flying high and likely to continue.

People will always eat, so this market has a much lower risk.