Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

<< home  < Articles

Ethanol in Petrol

Threads - Questionable Government Action from Questionable Science
On 23/7/2003, Rod Olsen posted:

The federal and NSW Governments have decided to hand significant tax and other assistance to Australian producers of ethanol, in order to encourage Petrol companies to voluntarily add ethanol to retail petrol up to a 10% level.

The Sydney Morning Herald had reported these government decisions today,
23.07.2003:

Quote:

"A multi-million-dollar bailout package for Australia's two producers of the fuel additive ethanol was approved by a divided Federal Government yesterday.

"The package includes $50 million in subsidies for new bio-fuel production plants and plans to get petrol companies to voluntarily mix ethanol with their fuel.

"The industry will also get assistance to adjust to a new 10 per cent cap on ethanol in petrol.

"The federal decision approving the package came on the same day that the NSW Government approved a deferral of payroll tax for Manildra, the company that makes 87 per cent of the fuel additive produced in Australia.

"The measures by both governments came despite concerns that ethanol may not deliver environmental benefits, will not help struggling sugar growers and is about three times more expensive than ordinary petrol..."

end quote

from: "Ethanol makers bailed out despite divisions", By John Garnaut, SMH:
National News, 23.07.2003, at:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/22/1058853072687.html

My concerns are:

1. The additional environmental impact upon the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) from additional agricultural runoff from any expansion of sugar farming on the Queensland coast designed to cash in on anticipated additional demand for sugar from which to produce ethanol.  I have read in various media and other Web reports that already the existing agricultural runoff from Queensland sugar cane farming has been implicated in some of the recent damage to the GBR from coral bleaching, possible aggravation of crown-of-thorns starfish, increased water turbidity adversely impacting upon the reef animal life.

2. There appears to be no general scientific consensus on the supposed benefits of ethanol in petrol for the environment.  Ethanol is alleged to produce less power under combustion than petrol, thus impacting upon car engine performance leading to increased fuel consumption and motor vehicle maintenance costs.

3. The cost to taxpayers of subsidies to ethanol producers, money which could have been used to meet higher priorities in government spending such as education or health.

The SMH article (ibid) closes by noting that:

quote:

"Manildra has been a substantial donor to the National, Liberal and Labor parties."

end quote

The SMH article describes Manildra as the company that produces 87% of Australia's ethanol.

>From my reading of this issue over time, together with today's SMH article, it seems to me that the Federal and NSW governments' decisions to provide taxpayer-funded welfare to ethanol producing companies is an example of questionable public policy, based on questionable science.  A person could be forgiven for thinking these government decisions are due more to skilful lobbying and clever political donation decisions than to sound environmental science.

I would appreciate the views of the Science Matters forum, particularly if I have harshly judged the scientific basis for ethanol addition to retail petrol.

Geoff Pain replied:

I think it unlikely that sugar production will increase in the short term as many mills and even a manufacturer of harvesting equipment have announced they will close. Even in Cuba production of cane is falling.

I think ethanol in fuel is a great idea from a Greenhouse perspective as it reduces fossil fuel wastage.

It's a pity Australia didn't introduce ethanol decades ago and I remember CSR killing off Tasmanian sugarbeet ethanol proposals which would have introduced collective ownership of distillation plants in depressed rural communities.

The fact that mates of the Libs and Nats in marginal seats benefit again is just typical. Remember the head of the ARC benefiting from sale of CSIRO assets through his real estate company.

Let's hope ownership of the means of production diversifies and local plants are established so fuel transport costs (both dollar and carbon) are reduced.

If engines need mdification for increased ethanol use, I'm sure the car companies can afford the necessary R&D.

Toby Fiander responded:

My interest in ethanol is the following:


In the medium term, it is likely that one, two or three of the five mainland oil refineries will close.  The existing plant is old and not making money in a highly competitive market.

This might mean for example, that it would necessary to get fuel for strategic purposes from Adelaide to the northwest coast.

Also, Australia is not self-sufficient with respect to petrol production, nor is there any likelihood that this will change unless drilling on the GBR or in some other environmentally sensitive location is permitted.. unlikely, I think.

So there are good reasons why alternative fuels need to be encouraged... loosely, one could say for strategic reasons.

As for runoff from sugar production damaging the GBR, well, yes, that is a possibility and might mean there would (finally) need to be some strategic control of agriculture, just like there is in almost every other country of the world, but not in Australia, which is largely free of strategic government planning and control.

Ultimately, sugar alone would not be capable of supplying a significant demand for renewable liquid fuel, although there could be enough cropping area in Australia to make a difference.

While alcohol has significant disadvantages, particularly as to cost and the effect on Sydney pollution, the alternatives have their own drawbacks eg.  LNG, LPG and the infant hydrogen to name the most likely ones.  There are some even less attractive options, like liquefaction of coal, which are probably right out for cost reasons, or the fact that there is just not enough water in most of Australia.

There was significant work undertaken on alcohol production and its use in agriculture by the under-appreciated Graeme Quick, at the NSW Department of Agriculture in the 1970s and even later.  This made it clear that the technology was capable of widespread use with limited cost.

Personally, I think Australia ought to be heading in the direction of having a fuel which is leaned routinely with alcohol.  I also think there should be an industry developed to supply the alcohol, for the reasons that I have outlined with a view to establishing if this is the best way to get another liquid fuel source.  If the subsidy approach does not establish an industry, then we might need to look at other alternatives like nationalisation of the industry that makes hydrogen or something.  Alcohol production seems to me to be the most promising of the alternative liquid fuel technologies in the short term.

Finally, the question of whether Manildra should be the sole recipient of the subsidy ... It has always seemed unfortunate to me that so few people were involved in alcohol production (for fuel), but that is the fact.  The industry starts from a very low base.  I think there needs to be some encouragement in whatever scheme is put forward for others to start manufacturing as well. OTOH, it is going to be risky, and it is entirely possible that once there is a industry established, something else will come along and make alcohol production yesterday's idea.  Perhaps creating an easily controlled sector would be just good planning in these circumstances.

Only in this context do I think it is important that alcohol is renewable, in the first instances... although there are obviously potential advantages from having something produced from the plentiful land resource.  Perhaps guayule will make a re-appearance....

Donald Lang added:

We had some discussion here not too long ago about the energy budget for sugar cultivation.

I can remember that Steven Berry had information about use of sugar waste products to run vehicles used in cultivation.

My residual impression was that sugar production was justified by the highly biologically significant energy that went to people, but that the entire cycle consumed more fossil fuel energy than was produced where others could use it.

Can anyone recycle their memories more efficiently than me please?


P.S. I suspect it is a science matter if the overall economics of combined sugar production and petroleum refining can be analysed here so that natterers can follow the process.

Podargus replied to Rod:

> My concerns are:
>
> 1. The additional environmental impact upon the Great Barrier Reef (GBR)
> from additional agricultural runoff from any expansion of sugar farming on
> the Queensland coast designed to cash in on anticipated additional demand
> for sugar from which to produce ethanol.  I have read in various media and
> other Web reports that already the existing agricultural runoff from
> Queensland sugar cane farming has been implicated in some of the recent
> damage to the GBR from coral bleaching, possible aggravation of
> crown--f-thorns starfish, increased water turbidity adversely impacting
upon
> the reef animal life.

This is a tad complicated.  At this time there is unlikely to be any additional land brought into cane production.  In any case additional suitable land is now in short supply, and of course not all land suitable for cane production is adjacent to the GBR.  Work done by and under the supervision of a friend a few years ago indicated that cane was not a significant contributor to GBR sediment or nutrient loads.  The main contributor was grazing, both as increased erosion and the additional nutrient from the cow pats in which Peter showed a passing interest.

You will have noticed that the reef is not equidistant from the coast along its length.  This reflects the 'natural' input of fresh water and sediment and nutrient levels.  This means that most of this additional input to the sea does not actually reach the reef.  There is some evidence IIRC that the inshore areas are being effected by this additional input, and it is conceivable that this could then have a further effect on the reef, although reefs by their very nature are (almost) closed systems.  Tourism perhaps is the most destructive activity on the reef.  It certainly destroyed Green Island's reef.

> 2. There appears to be no general scientific consensus on the supposed
> benefits of ethanol in petrol for the environment.  Ethanol is alleged to
> produce less power under combustion than petrol, thus impacting upon car
> engine performance leading to increased fuel consumption and motor vehicle
> maintenance costs.

There is a vocal group crying for us to produce renewable and CO2 neutral fuel.  As with bio diesel it is contentious as to whether it satisfies either.

In other words it probably (depending who you talk to) uses more energy than it produces.

> 3. The cost to taxpayers of subsidies to ethanol producers, money which
> could have been used to meet higher priorities in government spending such
> as education or health.

I guess it depends on whether you think that producing some of our own fuel is a good idea, taking into account the above.  In a time of cheap petroleum, alternatives will almost certainly not be developed without subsidies

>
> The SMH article (ibid) closes by noting that:
>
> quote:
>
> "Manildra has been a substantial donor to the National, Liberal and Labor
> parties."
>
> end quote
>
> The SMH article describes Manildra as the company that produces 87% of
> Australia's ethanol.
>
> From my reading of this issue over time, together with today's SMH article,
> it seems to me that the Federal and NSW governments' decisions to provide
> taxpayer-funded welfare to ethanol producing companies is an example of
> questionable public policy, based on questionable science.  A person could
> be forgiven for thinking these government decisions are due more to skilful
> lobbying and clever political donation decisions than to sound environmental
> science.

All the above may be true, but keep in mind that there is a lot of pressure from various groups, including environmentalists, for fuel alternatives.

Steven Berry replied to Donald:

G´Day DEE,

My infomation mainly concerned Sri-Lanka in the early 70s about the  use of bagasse bricks as fuel for steam trains,steam lorries and as domestic  cooking fuel.This was highly dependant of cheap labour to produce the bricks.The woman and children who did this wre paid in bagasse bricks.Cheers

Toby Fiander added:

>  My residual impression was that sugar production was justified by
>  the highly biologically significant energy that went to people, but
>  that the entire cycle consumed more fossil fuel energy than was
>  produced where others could use it.

IIRC, Peter Macinnis quoted the US investigation which indicated that the cost of production of alcohol was high so that producers would use fossil fuels in alcohol production rather than alcohol itself.  From memory, this conclusion was based on corn production in the USA.  A further conclusion was that there could not be enough corn produced in the US to meet whatever criterion had been asked.  It was at this point that I quibbled and said that the gross margin budgets were based on a low yield and, in any case, corn was not the input of choice in Australia for ethanol production (this discussion predates publication of a certain authoritative work on sugar by Mr Macinnis), that leaning of hydrocarbon fuels was probably the objective rather than running tractors on alcohol alone and various other minor points.

The principal conclusion of the study (by some eminent lads from UCLA??) remained intact, although I still think for strategic reasons fuel ethanol production is highly attractive.

Is this the discussion to which you refer, DEE?


and in a further post:


Here is a little summary of the article Peter Macinnis talked about.  It is a fair summary as far as I know:

>  David Pimentel (Cornell U.) led an Energy Department study in the
>  early 1980s in the wake of the Arab oil crisis that concluded ethanol
>  was a poor choice to wean the United States from dependence on
>  foreign energy sources. Pimentel found that it takes 1.4 times as
>  much energy to grow, harvest, process and distill corn into ethanol
>  than the energy produced by burning the fuel. Among his findings:
>  Corn would have to cover 97 percent of the U.S. land mass to
>  replace gasoline completely.

The basis of my quibbles was that the yield of corn assumed by Pimentel was very low and that Australian growers would typically get about twice the yield per hectare... and that sugar was probably a better option.

Living dangerously is apparently in my nature.

Pimentel's findings are disputed in other places.  There is a summary compiled by American corn-growers here:
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm

The USDA compiled a more numerical critique, which points out, among other things, that the average yield of corn per hectare is rising steeply:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

There is no discussion in any of these papers about the scarcity of irrigation water, what dependence on dryland agriculture for energy could mean or any of the obvious questions about reliability.

David Maddern wrote:

Can I just stir this into the mix.

In my research on yeasts I mentioned a week or 2 ago, which bore fruit, there is a tremendous amount of information about yeasts that convert wood to alcohol, including by genetic manipulation.

Toby responded:

The brewing industry has been reluctant to use engineered yeasts in case there is some odium.  I understand from food technologist friends in the wine industry that there can be significant reduction in fermentation time using engineered yeasts.  So this might be a means of reducing the cost of production for energy use, where there is no human ingestion of the yeasts or its product.

I am sure some Luddites will find this unpalatable....  [oops]

Jim Edwards wrote:

As I recall the political hoo-hah over ethanol from Australian sugar cane started when the Howard government succumbed to pressure from the Nats to whack a dirty great impost on ethanol imported from Brazil which had the
effect of making it totally uneconomic to ship it here.  This was intended to protect the cane growers who had plans for the production of ethanol but would not go ahead without a guaranteed market.  It did not seem that environmental issues had anything to do with it.

Anyway, it is now looking as if Queensland farmers would be better off growing banana plants for the paper industry.


David Maddern replied:

Actually, there is a use for banana other than paper, and that is veneer, being the thin layer of wood that is used on unremarkable plywood to make it decorative.

I have only heard a radio spot on this, but it sounded very promising

Ray commented:

I suspect that ethanol addition to petrol is motivated by two things.  Firstly, it is a weak attempt to placate the environmentally friendly Greens.  A VERY weak attempt in my opinion.   And secondly, Johnny probably has some relative or confederate in the school of avarice he wants to help add capital gain.

The first is pretty obvious, the second smacks of conspiracy (and probably indicates my own cynicism and void of trust in this government.)

Toby Fiander replied:

What you say may be true, but there is also a problem burning away out there...

Australia used to be close to self-sufficient with respect to liquid fuels - well, closer than it is now, and the problem is getting worse.  There are equivalent moves regarding alcohol even in the US, so it is not completely out of the blue.

Also there have been government rumblings about energy policy for some time.  We have noted them here on SM sporadically, and commented on their inadequacies.  But there is a history.  One might argue that it would be better and easier to jump an era of technology and aim directly for hydrogen, with the preferred transport vehicle a hybrid using fuel cells and so on.  But we don't have that kind of government, and we never have.  What is more, in the past, governments have been pilloried/crucified/thought disposable at least, for taking forward looking positions ("That is very brave, Minister!").

There are some definite hassles with fuel alcohol.  For example, the Sydney pollution problem is made worse by evaporating fuel and there are fuel regulations for the whole of the country WRT to fuel vapour pressures..  I understand that the winter and summer fuel production in Sydney and probably elsewhere is different to meet this regulation.  Using alcohol in fuel makes it harder to meet the vapour pressure regulation - I suppose the rest of the mixture will need to compensate, which might be one reason why the hydrocarbon companies have not been keen to use alcohol in fuel.  Who did you think has been promoting the idea that it would be good to have a sign is on nearly every petrol retail outlet that this fuel is all good stuff and does not contain alcohol?

The cost of alcohol is also a serious problem.  It is not clear what Australian history is littered with examples of government attempts to ensure a balanced budget with products which cannot compete on a world market if they pay the full cost of production.  Irrigated agriculture is one of principal examples.  But there are other policy objectives, and in this particular case, there is every possibility that eventually the cost of production of alcohol will be cheaper than for mineral hydrocarbon fuels.  This might depend in the medium term on how successful the US in its rather high-risk venture in Iraq or whether it prospecta for oil in the protected parts of Alaska.

Anyway... I think alcohol has a lot to recommend it and it will probably even be useful as fuel.  I think it time I had a further look at what the Institution of Engineers hydrogen group is up to.