QLD To Consider Mandating Ethanol in all Petrol Bowsers

[csv8]

A PARLIAMENTARY committee will consider whether to mandate ethanol flows from all petrol bowsers in Queensland under a move touted as beneficial to environment and industry.

Katter's Australia Party state leader Ray Hopper introduced the bill, which if passed would mean ethanol made up 5-10% of petrol, in Queensland Parliament on Thursday.

The Condamine MP said he was introducing the LNP's own bill which the Bligh Government rejected three times.

"We've seen the BP refinery yesterday speaking of sacking 350 people and we have an ethanol plant in Dalby, which could be closing down in the very near future," he said.

"If the government mandates ethanol in Queensland, which will not cost them one cent, and we can save a massive amount of industry.

"(The mandate means) every litre of petrol sold in this state will have to be 5% ethanol increasing to 10% over the next three years.

"That means our plants can survive, farmers can survive, our feedlotters, and it will be cheaper fuel and healthier fuel for the people of Queensland."

Mr Hopper said the Dalby plant had shut down for a few weeks after the price of sorghum soared from about $250 a tonne to $340 a tonne.

He said while that price was good for farmers that put further costs on the Dalby plant, which used 100% sorghum to produce ethanol.

Water and energy minister Mark McArdle would not give a direct answer during Question Time when Mr Hopper asked if he would agree to an ethanol mandate.

He said he had met with a man about ethanol on Tuesday and would consider his proposal.

The bill was sent to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee for consideration.

Katter's Australia Party Leader Bob Katter said Queensland was well behind the rest of the world, noting other countries recognised health problems from emissions and cheaper fuel costs.

He said the Queensland bill would be in conjunction with one in the Federal Parliament seeking an ethanol mandate.
http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au...wsers/2219560/

[KAM120]

Hmmm, I already thought our petrol contains up to 10% ethanol it says it on the browsers.
Ethanol might give better emmisions, problem is you use more of it. No better than lpg as a replacement for the regular stuff unless you go straight ethanol. But then there's all sorts of issues with runing straight ethanol

[Revolver]

At some point it will be mandated in the future. For Every state. And at some point the future will actually wind up being today.

Truth is we are running out of fossil fuel and we do need to look at alternate renewable fuel sources.

It's no longer a drippy hippy or conversationalists "do gooder" view or choice. It is actually a reality. And at some point there will have to be a further transition than "just" a choice of wanting to put it in your car.

Be angry all you want, deny it all you want, call it a conspiracy theory if you want. But just remember:

"Just because you dont believe it, doesn't make it a lie. It makes it the truth you don't believe."

[2011G6E]

I am angry...my old car cannot use it, my mothers little Mazda 121 cannot use it, the number of cars on the road which will suddenly become attractive garden ornaments which cannot use the fuel is staggering if you look up the list of vehicles that cannot use ethanol based fuels.

It's energy negative, taking more energy to produce than is contained in the final product. It only makes sense to use in a large scale in countries where one of two things are done. First, you can be like some South American countries and have so much sugar cane you could build mountains out of the stuff and have an economy where cheap labour means cost of production is low, or Second, you can heavily, and I do mean heavily, subsidise it with taxpayer funds.

Not to mention that no one has ever been able to explain exactly how deliberately making your car get worse economy is somehow good for the environment...

[GS608]

Nothing wrong with ethanol..plan to put mine on E85 soon..lower temps, cleaner engine, more power..the majority of cars on the roads these days are newish and can run ethanol no probs..might take a few of those unroadworthy **** boxes off the roads as well!

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I am angry...my old car cannot use it, my mothers little Mazda 121 cannot use it, the number of cars on the road which will suddenly become attractive garden ornaments which cannot use the fuel is staggering if you look up the list of vehicles that cannot use ethanol based fuels.

It's energy negative, taking more energy to produce than is contained in the final product. It only makes sense to use in a large scale in countries where one of two things are done. First, you can be like some South American countries and have so much sugar cane you could build mountains out of the stuff and have an economy where cheap labour means cost of production is low, or Second, you can heavily, and I do mean heavily, subsidise it with taxpayer funds.

Not to mention that no one has ever been able to explain exactly how deliberately making your car get worse economy is somehow good for the environment...

image

nice hat

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

It's energy negative

BS.

So...drilling holes in the ground to suck up a finite fluid then pump it into big energy consuming ships, trucks, trains to transport it to a refinery where energy is used to separate the nasties, burn off unwanted gasses, collect pitch etc..is any better?


Grow crop, sell off any food product from it, use otherwise unwanted waste to use for fuel production, replant crop.

Green plants suck Co2 from the air.


Anti ethanol dribble is just that.

Dribble.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Not to mention that no one has ever been able to explain exactly how deliberately making your car get worse economy is somehow good for the environment

Because you are reducing the amount out fossil fuels being consumed, and the resulting emissions.


People are so selfishly caught up about ethanol as a economy device, rather then the best option to ween our cars away from oil based fuels.

Oil won't last forever, ethanol will. And one day we'll all have to use it, unless we want boring electric cars.Good on the Queensland government, the more ethanol they force on us, the quicker these negative nellies will accept and we'll be safe from fuel shortages.


/rant

[wookie836]

peak oil is a myth, yes oil is finite but as the supply slowly dwindles and the price raises due to demand, other ways of extracting oil will become cost effective [look at fracking for gas], theres over 1/3 of the worlds total oil supply underneath frozen ground in the north of the planet and to our south, its not cheap enough to exploit yet but you can bet your bottom dollar that big oil companies will be drilling and pumping it out and passing the cost on to us once supply from their other oil fields dwindle.

also its funny that the EPA of america is lessening their ethanol mandate after much criticism and pressure and australia is attempting moving towards it. australia... always late to the party.

[in america] growing crops for biofuels has huge water consumption. fragile and erodible land that was saved for conservation is now being used to grow corn, land that is releasing greenhouse gases as it gets mowed down means that it takes 48 years for plants to break even and start reducing the emissions. read more on this here
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/31.../1235.abstract

there is less corn available for animal feed, further driving up costs for farmers. about 1/3 of the corn fields once used for animal feed are now used for ethanol. this also has a knock on effect to driving up food prices for people and world hunger groups are questioning whether food crops should be sacrificed for bio fuels.

http://www.agweb.com/article/epa_suc...oyce_Thompson/

now we are looking at using sorghum crops for bio fuels and some of those facts may not apply but wheres the studies into seeing if it will be effective and a wise move? it is used like corn to feed livestock [dairy/beef cattle, poultry, swine], the same part of the plant used for feed is the same parts used for biofuel so is there a benefit to it?

how many cars on the road are compatible with biofuels? my 3 vehicles certainly arent, if this goes national am i going to be forced at gun point to modify my vehicles to accept the 10% ethanol? or do i have to fork out to buy new ones? will the hygroscopic effect of the ethanol in my fuel tank mean that ill be ruining engines. as i work fifo i get 5 months of the year to drive any of my vehicles considering that theyre not pollutant compared to someone who drives their 4 cyl corolla to work and back daily.

is the price of ethanol based fuel going to remain cheap enough to compensate for the higher consumption cars need to use it for? look at what happened to LPG.

is swapping out food crops for sorghum going to start raising food prices? what are the flow on effects of the mad katters ideas going to be? of course itd be nice to ween off oil but im sure there will be better options than using food crop land for 'grassoline'.

[Stazza_Brendan]

Most of the E10 bowsers in my town disappeared.
There will still need to be normal unleaded fuel available at the bowser for the older cars to continue on the road.
Why cant they roll out E85 instead of E5 or E10. Id be up for that :p

[xxx000]

csv8
can you please wrap quotation marks around something you've lifted from another site as it always looks like you've written what you post?

Putting the link or read more and the link at the end of your post isn't the same thing

[mac_man_luke]

Surely it will just be 91 becomes e10 and 95 or 98 continue to be pure.

[simon varley]

E10 and B10 is pretty standard in other countries. I don't think you can actually buy pure petrol in England any more.

[csv8]

Originally Posted by xxx000

csv8
can you please wrap quotation marks around something you've lifted from another site as it always looks like you've written what you post?

Putting the link or read more and the link at the end of your post isn't the same thing

OK will do..I was told by an Admin posting the link was all that was required...so the article gets recognition..

[Franco Cozzo]

They should roll out E85 everywhere, I'm fairly sure Brazil runs mainly on E85?

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

They should roll out E85 everywhere, I'm fairly sure Brazil runs mainly on E85?

But as stated previously, ethanol has a very Iow energy return on energy invested. I dont believe it is negative, but it is quite low. The ability to create ethanol exist because of higher energy return fossil fuels. It plays a role in substituting imported oil with local oil, but it doesnt allow development. Ethanol has an eroei of approx. 4:1, world oil average is about 15:1, and society needs somewhere around 8 to 10:1 to develop (get oil, build roads, hospitals, farm etc etc). It may make environmental sense (if the farmers stopped using chemicals, stopped clearing land, and werent killing the great barrier reef), but it makes no economic sense. Ohh sorry, it makes economic sense for people who participate in the ethanol industry, or politicians who are reliant on the votes of those people.

Maybe it should be put to those who want it, that its ok, but they just cant use crude oil derived products in any manufacturing stage of the ethanol (growing, nrefining etc).

[NAK302]

i remember back in 1986 ULP made my cleveland redundant, i wonder how my beloved boss290 will go?

p.s i hate the word "mandate" as it takes away the word "choose"

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by GT-0733

i remember back in 1986 ULP made my cleveland redundant, i wonder how my beloved boss290 will go?

p.s i hate the word "mandate" as it takes away the word "choose"

my Clevo got eight solid years valve bouncing on 98 minus unleaded inserts

freshen up time showed no signs of regress

quick tickle and go agains

[Trump]

So will govco compensate owners of non-ethanol compatible cars when they suffer signifcant engine and/or fuel system damage?

[mechanic]

Unleaded in Cairns is $1.59.9 at the moment, this should be just the right time to push that to $2.00.
They'll need to subsidise the cane farmers to plant enough cane.

[NAK302]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

my Clevo got eight solid years valve bouncing on 98 minus unleaded inserts

freshen up time showed no signs of regress

quick tickle and go agains

good for you. i lived where there was no 98 option.

[NAK302]

Originally Posted by mechanic

Unleaded in Cairns is $1.59.9 at the moment, this should be just the right time to push that to $2.00.
They'll need to subsidise the cane farmers to plant enough cane.

BINGO!, we have a winner

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by GT-0733

good for you. i lived where there was no 98 option.

sorry, wasn't taking a dig at you

11:1 comp occasional AVGAS top ups until outlawed $2.50 litre

motto of the story is half of all the waa waa wambulance bs you hear about, is just that

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

So will govco compensate owners of non-ethanol compatible cars when they suffer signifcant engine and/or fuel system damage?

Of course not...you have the free choice to park up your old care and buy a brand new shiny one every couple of years like a good consumer.

Brazil and other countries where they run almost straight ethanol are great...because all of their cars are built from the factory to run on the stuff, and as I said, sugar coming out of their ears and low cost of production. Not sure people would want to turn over all arable land to producing ethanol crops or lower our standard of living to "compete" with Brazil.

Not to mention one other tiny point which is very much worth making while people flog themselves stupid over the idea of ethanol being the only fuel available...
Food production.
Already in a lot of poorer countries, big ethanol companies are buying up land and convincing farmers to grow crops for ethanol production. This is drastically driving up the cost of food in those countries and areas around them, as you need a lot of land and a lot of ethanol if you plan to even begin to try and "replace" oil.
But to hell with those brown buggers...as long as we can sit back and feel smug about somehow helping the environment...somehow...as long as that ignores ploughing up even more farmland to keep up with demand.

You can't get away from it, full stop. If a product takes far more energy to produce than is contained in the end product (or even just "breaks even" or near to it), there is no way it can stand on it's own two feet without massive taxpayer subsidies.

Wonder what will happen to the price of fuel if the government mandates ethanol usage...I seem to recall another incident where they convinced lots of people to go to LPG for their cars, and then whacked on a big excise which is still growing, not making the fuel practically not worth using for any economical benefit. But surely they wouldn't do that again with ethanol...they'd keep the massive subsidies wouldn't they...?

Right...?

[Jallopy]

E10 must be ok ...... but I always wonder why it is banned from Aircraft.
And boats it is also not recomended in also .
No good for my old trusty lawnmower too.

Whats wrong with a bowser that does not have E in it.

All those that want to use E10 use the other bowsers
Katter going off again without thinking this thru.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Of course not...you have the free choice to park up your old care and buy a brand new shiny one every couple of years like a good consumer.

Brazil and other countries where they run almost straight ethanol are great...because all of their cars are built from the factory to run on the stuff, and as I said, sugar coming out of their ears and low cost of production. Not sure people would want to turn over all arable land to producing ethanol crops or lower our standard of living to "compete" with Brazil.

Not to mention one other tiny point which is very much worth making while people flog themselves stupid over the idea of ethanol being the only fuel available...
Food production.
Already in a lot of poorer countries, big ethanol companies are buying up land and convincing farmers to grow crops for ethanol production. This is drastically driving up the cost of food in those countries and areas around them, as you need a lot of land and a lot of ethanol if you plan to even begin to try and "replace" oil.
But to hell with those brown buggers...as long as we can sit back and feel smug about somehow helping the environment...somehow...as long as that ignores ploughing up even more farmland to keep up with demand.

You can't get away from it, full stop. If a product takes far more energy to produce than is contained in the end product (or even just "breaks even" or near to it), there is no way it can stand on it's own two feet without massive taxpayer subsidies.

Wonder what will happen to the price of fuel if the government mandates ethanol usage...I seem to recall another incident where they convinced lots of people to go to LPG for their cars, and then whacked on a big excise which is still growing, not making the fuel practically not worth using for any economical benefit. But surely they wouldn't do that again with ethanol...they'd keep the massive subsidies wouldn't they...?

Right...?

stop dribbling ****

[cheap]

In my vehicle E10 gives me 6-8% worse milage than non ethanol fuel.

But at the cash register E10 isn't 6-8% cheaper than non ethanol fuel.

If it was 6-8% cheaper there would be more reason to use it.

[excopau]

Whinge whinge, its beter for the environment and health of people, more jobs, makes us more self sufficient, if you use sugar cane, it produces the most ethanol per acre, more farmers, mroe country jobs, Brazil been doing it for years for reasons.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

sorry, wasn't taking a dig at you

11:1 comp occasional AVGAS top ups until outlawed $2.50 litre

motto of the story is half of all the waa waa wambulance bs you hear about, is just that

Exhaust valve seat recession or high temperature erosion only occurs on soft valve seats when you're running very lean mixtures.
I'd say, your combustion temperatures don't get visciously hot enough to cause problems. but if you were running a "27C emission compliant" Cleveland.....

[mechanic]

" if you use sugar cane, it produces the most ethanol per acre, more farmers, mroe country jobs, Brazil been doing it for years for reasons. "

A lot of cane growers have gone into cattle and other crops but given the right incentive this could restart some mills and kick some life back into places like Babinda that lost it's mill in Yasi.
Also the Ord river has been talking about doing stage 3, they have a mill up there as well.
I have absolutely no idea though of what infrastructure you need to produce E.
Our mill has gone from Cairns, so now there's Mossman, Gordonvale, Tablelands and South Johnstone. They used to provide quite a lot of jobs in the crushing season. Be good to see them operating at capacity.
Off topic:- Should be starting to process our own cattle instead of exporting live, Cairns meatworks and sugar mill are long gone and now we have record unemployment according to yesterdays paper.

[nstg8a]

Always makes me laugh when I hear people say 'oh my car runs like a dog and has no power on e10 but runs mint on anything else, e10 is crap!'

Personally I think if a fuel that has ethanol making up less than 10% caused such dramatic effects as half the naysayers claim then they should be looking very closely at their car.
. If the tune is so knife edge that a small percentage of the fuel doesn't have quite the bang as the rest of it, and causes it to run like a **** there's something wrong.
And I really doubt it's the fuel.

My fairlane is my daily at the moment, I get between 330-370 Kim's from a tank all city driving. Doesn't matter whether it's e10, 98 whatever...
No car I've owned has experienced any dramatic effects, good bad or otherwise running on e10
I hear people say they get 50kms less a tank when they run it, but did they drive exactly the same as the previous tank? Was the temperature the same?
So many variables, and such a small economy difference how can anyone really say e10 is the cause?