Mandated Methanol in the U.S.

[michaeld]

Denis and Davestlouis,
From my recent reading, you are both right in some ways and wrong in other ways.  Here is my wisdom (hard earned from nearly half an hour of internet browsing!):

Realize that I am writing from a perspective of someone who would buy a diesel in a red hot minute if I could come across a well maintained car at a good price.  Diesels cost more to buy (as a general rule) but also have a higher resale value.  In another thread I posted the results of w116 6.9s vs. diesels in fetching high resales: and diesels won.

In terms of short term maintenance, gas engines win hands down (particularly modern engines w/ longer service intervals).  Frequent oil and coolant changes are an absolute MUST for diesels compared to gas.  It is also necessary to change fuel filters and water separators more frequently.  In addition, diesels have a larger oil capacity (except maybe compared to our gas engines!) and therefore cost more.  Additionally, in cold climates, it's not even close: gas engines require less TLC.  Gasser's eyes widen when dieslers talk about glow plugs and block heaters.  Modern diesels have been able to largely get away from block heaters and what not by adding more computers and electronics.

In some ways, diesels have the nod on maintenance; in others, gassers do.  Diesels have no ignition system, and have much longer lived exhaust systems.  On the other hand, diesel injectors have historically been much more complicated than gas.  And in general, I frequently read that gas engines are easier for DIYs.  Furthermore, I read that diesels are generally more expensive when you DO need repairs.

That said, diesels win in the long run.  If well maintained, they simply have less that is likely to go wrong than gas.  It's fitting - given the nature of gas and diesel - that it comes down to the story of the hare and the tortoise.  I also think that the dieselers, until fairly recently, were a different breed than gassers.  Dieselers have been the kind of folk that fuss more over their cars than gassers.  A lot of gassers think in terms of horsepower and performance; dieselers think in terms of durability and reliability.  They have historically been more likely to dot the i's and cross the t's regarding routine maintenance.

IMHO, of course.

[Denis]

Hi guys

Reading the last few posts I have come to realize that you fellows do not know what a modern diesel is.
Your comments have little to do with the type of turbocharged, common rail feed, digital FI diesel engine architectures that are prevalent in Europe today. It seems that Americans have abandoned diesels for such a long time that they no longer know what the "state of the art" is.

Take the BMW 330 diesel, it displaces less than my 350SE and has the same power but 1800 RPM LOWER. Torque ? significantly better torque than a 4.5.

In fact the modern diesel is known for its huge torque and low maintenance costs. As far as I know, there are really not many cars today that can be driven "without" maintenance if only due to the presence of digital command gadgets.

I think that the only real negative aspect of diesels comes up if you live in very cold climates.

As for DIY-ers, since I believe that we are talking new cars here, neither gas nor diesel are DIY anymore. I do know that in France, the service costs for a diesel or gasser are quite similar. When people prefer gassers here, it usually has to do with high rpm power output and the "sound" at those speeds.

Half of the cars in France and Germany are diesels, most people in Europe know nothing about diesel engines but just want them to run with the least hassle possible...

Ponder these statements and hope that somebody brings a real modern car diesel engine to America some day 

Of course there has to be a will to stop wasting petrol...

Denis

Paris, France

[davestlouis]

Denis, you have hit on an important point...in the US, we have VW TDI engines, but not for long, they don't pass 2007? emissions, as I recall. and MB CDI's.  That's it in passenger cars.  In trucks, the only diesel available in a light truck is the Jeep Liberty with the little Italian CRD diesel, other trucks are heavier, 3/4 and one ton models, which are so huge and ungainly that lots of people won't buy them.  Couple that with the expense of buying a diesel in the first place and there is no compelling reason for the majority of the buying public to bother with a diesel.  I don't mean to be crass, but if you pull up to the drivethrough line at McDonalds in a Dodge Ram 3500 with the 5.9L Cummins, you can't order until you turn off the truck, because the girl inside can't hear you over the motor noise. 

[dudu]

Europe is different regarding diesel cars.

In Spain more than 60% are diesel cars. I own a Peugeot 206 Hdi ( a 2000 cc , common rail , first generation ) that runs for 100km using aprox 5 liters. It has 92 HP and is able to get RPM and speed very very fast.
Of course it ends around 4500 rpm, but for the day by day it is not a problem for me living 50km away from my work.

Some friends bought a 1.6 HDi that gives 110 HP and a 2.0 HDi ( 16 valves ) that gives 136CV, all of them plenty of torque. Some JTD from Alfa Romeo are able to get 150 HP from a 2000 cc with less than 5 liters each 100km.

I do not really know how different are your rules regarding emissions, but may be the Euro 4 and US 2007 emissions laws are very similar.

Regards.

Eduardo.

[Denis]

Yes dudu

You do know...you are European. I believe that the real emissions problem in the US is California.

YES ! I applaud its historical pollution control work but by now, it looks like "keep those foreigners out of here" !! Besides, do you Californians know what public transit is   

Diesels are great...now...300SDs are slow but not that slow, I thought that 0-60 was 14 sec and not 20. Fourteen seconds is acceptable, 20 is a joke for an S-class.

Feel of the day on a W116 - I really love my "dog" car, it matches me and my values, despite my bad fix on the MPS of my D-jet, this car is still  smooth. And that short stroke 3.5 sound is so special.

Denis

Paris, France

[oscar]

I have to weigh in again.  In the past I've been as ignorant as Thomas the Tank and Friends when talking about "Dirty Diesels".  Believing that diesels spew black smoke, are noisy and powerless.  When my work first got a diesel GMC it was noisy and acceleration was poor.  Then they purchased MB's and VW's that were less noisy but had no acceleration and top speed would be around 130-140km/hr and it took too long to get there.  Now our VW's get up to 180km/hr and does it quiclkly thanks to the intercooler and turbo which takes no time at all to spin up.  I'll have to check my specs but these vehicles are around 2000kg and the 2.5l motors return about 9l/100 when not raced. 

Forget about the 5.9l+ behemoths.  For a mode of transport there's a world of difference to newer diesels with smaller motors that can accelerate, go fast and return good fuel economy.  I don't think servicing is an issue especially in the future if the alternate fuels mentioned previously are used due to their self oiling capabilities. 

I'm still a "petrol head".  Let's just say a few of my misconceptions have been demolished.

[davestlouis]

I'm not opposed to diesels either, but they seem to be a low volume specialty item in the US...until there is a demonstrable cost savings with diesel, it's going to be a tough sale.  Even die-hard diesel pick up truck fans concede that it takes well in excess of 100K miles to recognize any savings vs a gas truck, as prices are now.  My point is that the economic case for diesel cars isn't sound in the US, as things sit now.  Tonight, regular unleaded was $2.71, diesel was $2.74/gal. 

Let's look at the average Toyota Camry buyer...they pay $15000-2000 new, get a 5 year loan, drive 12000-1500 miles per year and trade it in at some point.  If I tried to tell that person to pay an additional $2500 or more upfront to get a diesel, so they can save a few MPG's but pay as much, or more for the fuel, that's a tough sale. 

[michaeld]

Denis,

In California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont (note: all of which are bastions of policitcal liberalism), diesel cars are not allowed to be sold new because of stricter emissions standards.  So you are correct as far as I am concerned: I haven't seen a new - or even relatively new - diesel car around these parts for some time.  I HAVE, however, seen new diesels: one of my best friends - he's more like a grandfather to me - has a big Dodge diesel pickup w/ a 600 turbo diesel engine.  He loves his truck so much that it isn't hard to get him singing its praises.  So even in California, we're not in the stone ages re: diesels.  As a native Californian, I agree w/ your assessment about California.  If you put liberals in charge of anything, they will find a way to screw it up - usually through a magnificent blend of arrogant high-handedness and world-class incompetence.  The only skill they seem to have is shifting the blame for their colossal failures to some other source.

That said, the fact remains that diesels DO require more maintenance than gassers - and modern gassers have only increased that distance (gassers today have incredibly long service intervals).  Filters and fluids need more changing on diesels than gassers; that is simply a brute fact.  If you do not properly maintain your oil and coolant in a diesel, you will be one very sorry pedestrian.  And yes, cold weather continues to be an issue even for the 2006 diesels.  But by and large, diesel owners take those maintenance requirements in stride.  They know a little here and a little there will be to their advantage in the long run.

Diesels have a lot of advantages.  They are more efficient than gas engines.  They have more torque on a per liter basis, and that torque is more readily available at the low rpm ranges where it is most useful.  I think their reputation for durability and reliability IS slipping somewhat in relationship to gassers: GMs here have been having a lot of problems with their injector pumps, and Fords have another major issue I cannot recall.  But diesels will continue to have their place in the world due to their low end pulling power.  And they are increasingly making a comeback as passenger cars due to their fuel efficiency (not to mention the bio-diesel, et al).  The improved use of turbo chargers has added substantially to their appeal.

Mind you, all that being said, this IS a w116 forum, and so when we talk diesels, many of us are thinking about 300SDs. 

In a way, switching the subject to brand new diesels is kind of a backhanded put down on the 300SDs.  Those magnificent cars proved themselves.  You talk about noise and odorous fumes, and a true dieseler smiles as though they were his badge of honor.  He will also have a "Yes, but..." look on his face. 

Diesels have come a long way toward overcoming a perception of a stigma (i.e. perception, NOT reality) among women.  If the wife can't stand diesels, the husband won't buy one, and if women frown on diesels, then men who are out to impress women won't buy one.  Very soon this stigma will be overcome - possibly as soon as 2007, when Mercedes will have a diesel that WILL qualify for the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of California.  I wish new diesels every success.  I truly believe diesels to be a superior answer to hybrid gassers.

PS between when I started and finished this post, Dave added two compelling reasons why diesel cars have not done well in the US apart from liberalism's continual market interference: low gas prices (compared to Europe) and the tendency of most Americans NOT to keep cars beyond a few years.  I'm someone who buys a car (new or old) and keeps it until its done for.  But most Americans simply are not.  Good points, Dave.

PPS Denis, that remark about public transportation was just hitting below the belt.  The few times I've been forced to use public transportation were a blend of confusing and disturbing.  As the saying goes, "You can pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers."  

[Denis]

Hi michaeld

Denis, that remark about public transportation was just hitting below the belt.  The few times I've been forced to use public transportation were a blend of confusing and disturbing.

I know what you mean and in fact I should have remembering how bad public transit is in a country with such a love for the automobile. Personally, I think that "idling" a V8 W116 in the type of traffic jams we have in Paris is pure masochism - these cars are made for the open road...

Cheers !

Denis

Paris, France

[116.025]

I truly believe diesels to be a superior answer to hybrid gassers.

AMEN! Though in my opinion, that's bordering on understatement    Just wait till all these fad-buyers of the Prius have to shell out several Gs for a battery pack...

PS between when I started and finished this post, Dave added two compelling reasons why diesel cars have not done well in the US apart from liberalism's continual market interference: low gas prices (compared to Europe) and the tendency of most Americans NOT to keep cars beyond a few years.  I'm someone who buys a car (new or old) and keeps it until its done for.  But most Americans simply are not.  Good points, Dave.

I'm with you michaeld, I plan on driving my cars for at least a couple of decades, maybe more, which brings me some sideways looks from most people.  I don't get it...of course, maybe that's why I can't stand many new cars, because they're built to be used for 3-5 years and then tossed, and I can tell it and can't stand it.  Give me a vintage Benz, built to be a family heirloom, and I'll be happy.

PPS Denis, that remark about public transportation was just hitting below the belt.  The few times I've been forced to use public transportation were a blend of confusing and disturbing.  As the saying goes, "You can pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers."  

Haha, that's about right.

And as for the mention earlier of diesels and drive throughs, I had a similar experience shortly after I got my 220D...I went to Bojangles' with some buddies, and gave the girl my order, and she said, "What?"...I repeated..."What? I can't hear you!"  Then it clicked...as soon as I quieted the OM615, I could order...

[michaeld]

I have enjoyed this discussion about diesels a great deal.  But I'm going to (gasp) bring it back to the original topic of methanol and ethanol.

While going into the grocery store tonight, I saw a large table with a huge banner that said, "BRING GAS PRICES DOWN."  As I was coming out, a man came up to me wanting me to sign his petition.  I aksed him how he planned to lower gas prices.  He said, by introducing methanol and ethanol onto the market.  I said, "How will that lower gas prices?"  Said he, "By introducing competition to the free market."

I said, "First of all, methanol is known to cause cancer in engines, and corn-based ethanol cost every bit as much as gas.  Second, if you're talking about the free market, then you don't need my signature on any petition to do it."

The latter point discombobulated him a bit.  It was somewhat funny that he was claiming that we need to sign a petition to require the government to start doing something and calling his effort "the free market."

Ethanol has been forced on the US market by entrenched special interests for years now, and it continues to be a boondoggle.  The Brazilians have a magnificent alternative to gas in their sugar cane-based ethanol.  It is considerably cheaper to produce than US corn-based ethanol, and is more energy efficient.  I understand that the corn ethanol actually consumes more energy to produce than it "gives back!"  Trying to force that onto the market is a classic example of 'ignorance in action.'   

Right now, the US government forbids oil drilling in Anwar, Alaska.  It is believed to be a huge deposit, on a par w/ the largest in the world, but difficult to access.  Liberals claim that it would cost too much to get the oil, so we shouldn't bother.  But at the same time, they will fight to the death to prevent any drilling in Anwar.  Obviously, if it cost too much to drill, oil companies won't do it, so there is no need for regulations preventing it.  Typical hypocritical double-speak!  Allowing oil companies to drill in Anwar, now there's a petition for a truly free market alternative I'd be willing to sign!

BTW, I actually WOULD be willing to pay more at the pump if I was buying home-grown gas: it would be worth it just to say, "Bite me, OPEC!"

[OzBenzHead]

Here's an article on ethanol from an Oz journal (ECOS #119, APR-JUN 2004). The emphases and  notes are mine.

Ethanol - What's it all about?

Ethanol has crept into our petrol, the media, and our lives, and is a confused issue. Steve Davidson looks at why it's on the agenda, who's behind it, and whether it is really a viable green fuel.

Although alcohol was blended into road transport fuel in Australia as early as 1929, fuel ethanol use is now equivalent to a miniscule [sic] 0.2% of this country's petroleum and diesel consumption. Yet, in the last few years, fuel ethanol (normally a blend of ethanol and petrol) has catapulted into prominence as an alternative, renewable fuel for our motor vehicles. Why the sudden interest in ethanol fuel? Why is it so contentious? And what are the pros and cons?

There has been heated debate on the benefits or otherwise of fuel ethanol use and, to help guide policy in this somewhat fraught area, in July 2003 the Commonwealth Government asked CSIRO [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation], the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics to produce a report. Their job was to investigate the appropriateness of maintaining the Howard government's objective that biofuels (mainly ethanol but also biodiesel), produced in Australia from renewable resources, contribute at least 350 million litres (ML) to the total fuel supply by 2010.

So what can be gleaned from the final report - Appropriateness of a 350 Million Litre Biofuels Target - and from other literature, especially Fuel Ethanol - Background and Policy Issues (a Parliamentary Library Current Issues Brief) and other viewpoints? How green is ethanol in reality? What are the economic and regional benefits, if any, and can a viable fuel ethanol industry prosper in this country?

A high profile

The sudden interest in fuel ethanol has been driven largely by low prices in the Australian sugar industry*, an interest in diversification in the grains industry and perhaps by the growing realisation that our known crude oil reserves are likely to start running low in the not too distant future. Then there is the strengthening consensus that global warming is a reality rather than a possibility.

* (Of course, this has nothing at all to do with the Australia-America Free Trade Agreement, which means the US is free to sell the world its sugar but Australia is not!)   

Some parts of the sugarcane industry see use of ethanol-petroleum blends such as E10 (10% ethanol, 90% petroleum) as an opportunity to diversify, given that sugars in sugarcane can be fermented to create ethanol.

Here, it is usual to use C molasses, the syrup-like by-product of sugar refineries, often fed to livestock, but any sugar product in the production chain can provide ethanol. Some grain-growing regions also see opportunities for new industries to stimulate local employment and economic activity.

Ethanol companies, notably Manildra, which produces [sic] 87% of our ethanol at its Nowra plant from wheat starch, would also like to see mandatory use of ethanol in Australian petroleum, preferably blended at 20%. However, the suggestion that such blends become the norm at the bowser has caused uproar from motoring organisations, car manufacturers and many consumers.

This in turn generated a lot of negative publicity for ethanol, given that some independent service stations in NSW have been selling blends well above 10% since 1994. The Federal Government has, for now, imposed a 10% cap on ethanol content of transport fuel sold in Australia.

Does ethanol really damage cars? The jury is still out on this, but virtually every stakeholder in the motor vehicle industry has stated that warranties on motor vehicles and bowsers [petrol pumps] could be at risk if ethanol blends above 10% are used. One Commonwealth Government review on the impacts of a 20% ethanol blend on vehicles found that there is conflicting information on this. However, it identified a number of problems, especially in older cars. These include the possible perishing and swelling of materials in fuel systems and the potential for corrosion of engine components. A new government study into this is underway and will report this year.

Environmental pros and cons

While it is indisputable that ethanol from crops has the advantage of being a renewable fuel - unlike fossil fuels, which are a finite resource - a range of other environmental benefits and offsets of fuel ethanol production and usage emerge.

One of ethanol's credentials is that it is a good substitute for the toxic compound MTBE, an oxygenate added to fuel to make it burn cleaner. Petroleum normally contains no oxygen. MTBE has caused environmental concerns in relation to contamination of groundwater supplies in the United States. It has now been banned in some states in Australia and strict volume limits for MTBE fuel additives now apply, enhancing the prospects for ethanol. Similarly, Australian fuel standards are to be progressively tightened after 2006 and this could increase opportunities to use ethanol as an octane enhancer.

Does ethanol reduce air pollution? This simple question has proved difficult to answer with certainty because so many variables come into play. However, it is safe to say that, compared to petrol, ethanol-blended petrol reduces tailpipe exhaust emissions of toxic carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, 1-3 butadiene, benzene, toluene and xylenes. On the down side, emissions of aldehydes (such as formaldehyde) are increased, while the effect on ozone emissions is still unclear.

What about greenhouse gases? Production of ethanol from sugar or wheat is sometimes thought to have no net greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere - because each crop locks up CO2, the main greenhouse gas, as carbohydrate while the previous crop is powering cars, but this is overly simplistic. For example, what if you include the fuel use and emissions of farm machinery, fertilisers, the transport of raw materials to ethanol plants and so on? And what about other emissions?

To take all these factors into account, scientists can compare net emissions during the full fuel life-cycle of different fuels (in the case of ethanol, from farm to ethanol factory to tailpipe). Over the full fuel life-cycle, ethanol blends appear to produce slightly lower overall emissions of greenhouse gases than conventional petroleum.

An analysis of CO2,CH4 (methane) and N2O emissions by Dr Tom Beer of CSIRO Atmospheric Research, shows that, over the full fuel life-cycle, E10 blended fuel reduced overall greenhouse gas emissions by 3.7%, relative to unleaded petrol (see graph). This is for ethanol produced from molasses or wheat starch waste, the two methods currently employed by Australian ethanol companies. Of course, blends containing more ethanol would give different results, but E10 is currently the standard alternative mix.

The level of greenhouse gas reduction depends on the precise nature of the ethanol factory; in particular, the source of energy for these factories. Reductions of 5.1% in greenhouse gas emissions have been estimated for E10 blends on a full fuel life-cycle basis when factory energy is obtained by co-generation of sugarcane bagasse (the fibrous residue remaining after sugar is extracted). On the other hand, greenhouse reductions could be as low as 1.7% if coal or oil was used in the production of ethanol from wheat crops.

Analysis of other air pollutants revealed that over the full fuel life-cycle, E10 fuel (derived from molasses or wheat starch waste) significantly reduced carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by 22-26%. If coal was used in the ethanol factory, particulate matter emissions were increased by 32-34%, but there were lesser effects on other air pollutants relative to unleaded petrol. So it's a mixed bag with some air quality benefits and some negatives from ethanol use.

What does this mean for human health? If an extra 205 ML of ethanol were to be used in 2010 to meet the 350 ML biofuels target (the balance would come from current production and from biodiesel), the change in total life-cycle pollution would provide some health benefits. But these would be small in dollar terms - about $1.8 million if a monetary value is put on mortality and morbidity, given certain assumptions about ethanol production. These benefits are mostly due to reduced air pollution in urban areas, primarily from reduced production of petrol at refineries in cities.

Air pollution is not the only environmental issue. The report states that to meet the 350 ML target, other land, water and biodiversity impacts from production, distribution and use of biofuels, principally ethanol, appear to be insignificant if distillery wastes are disposed of using established best practice.

What, then, is the bottom line on environment and ethanol? The '350 ML by 2010' report concluded: Particularly with the prospect of significantly cleaner petrol and diesel in use in the vehicle fleet by 2010, the net environmental impacts of biofuels, while positive, are small, in overall terms.

Regional impacts

Ethanol enthusiasts argue strongly that ethanol production will stimulate the local agricultural industries, increase employment, and revitalise rural communities. Authors of the report say that the regional employment benefits have often been overstated. Nonetheless, if non-urban ethanol plants do proceed, some regional benefits, especially employment, will certainly result. These will be concentrated in parts of Queensland and New South Wales.

Using the proponents' figure of 36 direct jobs for each biofuel plant of 60 ML capacity, to produce an additional 235 ML of biofuel, four such plants would need to operate, providing 144 jobs. If we assume that each of these jobs leads to two additional indirect jobs, total employment attributable to the 350 ML biofuels target (whether ethanol, biodiesel or both) would be a maximum of 432 jobs.

However, these would come at considerable cost. The estimated government subsidy required to induce sufficient investment to meet the 350 ML target is equivalent to government expenditure per direct job (in 2010) of between $210,000 and $303,000. If indirect jobs are included in the calculation, each job will cost between $70 000 and $101,000.

Some economics

An inherent barrier to using more fuel ethanol is that it costs much more to produce than petrol or diesel. According to international studies it costs about two to five times more to produce a litre of ethanol than a litre of petrol, depending on feedstock costs and prevailing crude oil prices. ABARE data show that ethanol production using C molasses costs about 1.75 times more than petrol. This is why it has been necessary to assist the fuel ethanol industry with a favourable rate of excise, bounty payments to producers and, since September 2002, a subsidy to producers.

The '350 ML by 2010' report estimates that to meet the target, the total net present value of costs to the Australian economy (GDP) from 2004-2010 is between $95 million and $100 million.

On December 16, 2003, the Australian Government announced that an excise rate on ethanol will be phased in over five years, beginning on July 1, 2008, to a maximum of 12.5 cents per litre in 2012 - considerably less than the 38 cents per litre excise on unleaded petrol.

The problem is that, as stated in the '350 ML by 2010' report, ethanol from sugarcane molasses and from whole cereal grains 'will require substantial and ongoing government assistance to be economically viable'. On the other hand, ethanol from waste wheat starch (as produced by Manildra) and biodiesel from waste cooking oil both appear to be viable or close to viable without ongoing financial assistance from the government. But the quantities of ethanol that can be produced from these waste streams are small (about 100 ML).

Ethanol (C2H5OH) is one of those renewable fuels that you grow in a paddock rather than extract from underground. An alcohol, it has a range of uses apart from fuel, including the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, plastics, paints and thinners, aerosols, cosmetics, foods and alcoholic beverages (where it is the intoxicating component) - but don't try drinking industrial alcohol! It has been denatured to make it undrinkable. Ethanol is usually made by fermentation of grain starch or molasses (from sugarcane), but can also be generated from the lignocellulose in wood and other crops.

Ethanol production from plant material or biomass taps into the huge amount of solar energy fixed by plants on Earth each year. Adherents point out that, like all forms of bioenergy, the CO2 released during use of ethanol is approximately equivalent to the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere during growth of the sugarcane, wheat or other source crops.

Ethanol is the most widely used alternative (non-fossil) transport fuel in the world, but comprises only about 1.4% of petrol consumed in the United States, where its use is mandated in some areas to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. In Brazil, a major sugar producer, vehicles are specially modified to cope with any blend of ethanol and petrol. There, ethanol is normally blended at about 25% but some cars run on 100% ethanol.

In Australia, some fuel blends have been sold in New South Wales for the last decade, while in south-east Queensland, BP began marketing a 10% blend in 2002. [And, about two months ago - March 2006 -  Shell started marketing an E5, 100-octane blend in Australia.]

A litre of ethanol actually contains less energy when combusted than a litre of petrol, but it can be used in conventional fuels as an octane booster (to prevent engine knock), as an oxygenate (to prevent air pollution from carbon monoxide and ozone) and as a fuel extender. Ethanol can lead to greater fuel efficiency, but this is offset by its lower energy content.

All of Australia's ethanol is currently produced on the east coast and much of it is used for applications other than fuel. The two main producers are Manildra, using wheat starch feedstock, and CSR, using molasses from sugar mills. Australia's total ethanol production of about 350 million litres a year is a small 'homebrew' by comparison with the 12.2 billion litres produced in 2003 in the United States, now the world leader, and the 6.95 billion litres produced in Brazil. But is this just the beginning of a more substantial industry here?

Potential ethanol production from C molasses supplies is also relatively small. So can ethanol help save the sugar industry?

If all the C molasses from the Australian sugar industry were to be converted to ethanol, about 300 ML of biofuel would be produced. This would represent approximately four to six ethanol plants and 1-2% of the nation's petrol usage. While a useful diversification for the sugar industry, the overall impact on the industry's profitability would be small.

The '350 ML by 2010' report valued the sugar in C molasses at about $100 per tonne. Sugar industry sources indicate that farmers and millers struggle to remain profitable when world sugar prices fall below $250 per tonne. If ethanol was to have a large impact on sugar industry profitability, sugar feedstocks other than C molasses would have to be used. However, the higher prices for these feedstocks imply still higher ethanol production costs and hence higher levels of government assistance.

The final paragraph of the '350 ML by 2010' report is undoubtedly not what ethanol stakeholders want to hear. The authors, leading scientists and economists, conclude that: The costs of implementing a policy of assisting the Australian biofuels industry to meet a 350 ML biofuels target are estimated to exceed the benefits.

The ball is now firmly in the Government's court and it is faced with a hard decision in balancing economic, environmental and social goals. Does it go with the scientific and economic studies, which suggest the economic costs of assistance are high and environmental and social benefits only modest, or does it give ethanol, on the face of it an appealing renewable fuel, a multi-million-dollar leg up?

More information:

Government biofuel initiatives (including the 350 ML report): http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectID=A9D9A207-0351-51FBF20C287758203878

CSIRO, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) and Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) 2003, Appropriateness of a 350 Million Litre Biofuels Target, Report to the Australian Government, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Canberra, December.

Roarty M and Webb R. Current Issues Brief no. 12, 2002-03, Fuel Ethanol - Background and Policy Issues, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra.

ECOS #119, APR-JUN 2004

[The Warden]

Wow, this is what I get for getting busy with finals and not having time to check this thread...it really took off 

I could add some comments to the diesel discussion, but since it looks like things have turned away, I won't drag this thread further into the weeds...very discussion, though...