For your PC needs
On Ethanol from Corn and other vege stuff.
<http://slate.com/id/2122961/>
or
<http://tinyurl.com/dl422>
I note with some interest that both Sugar Cane and low THC Hooch
aren't mentioned. Pity.
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
On Ethanol from Corn and other vege stuff.
<http://slate.com/id/2122961/>
or
<http://tinyurl.com/dl422>
I note with some interest that both Sugar Cane and low THC Hooch
aren't mentioned. Pity.
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>On Ethanol from Corn and other vege stuff.
>
><http://slate.com/id/2122961/>
>or
><http://tinyurl.com/dl422>
>
>I note with some interest that both Sugar Cane and low THC Hooch
>aren't mentioned. Pity.
And what's the bet we'll have mandated E10 during, or soon after, the
current term of government. The main source will be grain sorghum.
Who gives a stuff about sugar!
--
John H
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:16:20 +1000, John_H wrote:
> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>
>>On Ethanol from Corn and other vege stuff.
>>
>><http://slate.com/id/2122961/>
>>or
>><http://tinyurl.com/dl422>
>>
>>I note with some interest that both Sugar Cane and low THC Hooch aren't
>>mentioned. Pity.
>
> And what's the bet we'll have mandated E10 during, or soon after, the
> current term of government. The main source will be grain sorghum.
>
> Who gives a stuff about sugar!
Cane farmers making money. That'll be the day!
John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:01jkg1lea65vfh9nehl7qh4l2ce5ucusqa@4ax.com:
> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>
>>On Ethanol from Corn and other vege stuff.
>>
>><http://slate.com/id/2122961/>
>>or
>><http://tinyurl.com/dl422>
>>
>>I note with some interest that both Sugar Cane and low THC Hooch
>>aren't mentioned. Pity.
>
> And what's the bet we'll have mandated E10 during, or soon after, the
> current term of government. The main source will be grain sorghum.
>
> Who gives a stuff about sugar!
>
> --
> John H
Don't really see it. We don't produce a lot of sorghum and it's a
fairly high value stock feed. But we do get a lot of waste starch and
sugars from wheat and milk processing which could be used (particularly
down south). I think the largest ethanol producing in the country is
attached to a Milandra flour mill. Wasn't that where all the Sydney
contaminant was coming from?
Sarina Sugar mill produces a fair amount to but not enough to supply
current E10 consumption (they sell to industrial users).
Cheers
Brett
Brett wrote:
>John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:01jkg1lea65vfh9nehl7qh4l2ce5ucusqa@4ax.com :
>>
>> And what's the bet we'll have mandated E10 during, or soon after, the
>> current term of government. The main source will be grain sorghum.
>
>Don't really see it. We don't produce a lot of sorghum and it's a
>fairly high value stock feed. But we do get a lot of waste starch and
>sugars from wheat and milk processing which could be used (particularly
>down south). I think the largest ethanol producing in the country is
>attached to a Milandra flour mill. Wasn't that where all the Sydney
>contaminant was coming from?
Sorghum is the main dryland crop grown in NE Australia (summer
rainfall area). At a guess annual production is in excess of a
million tonnes. The surplus is exported, which means that export
parity usually determines the price. Current domestic price is around
$100 per tonne. At one stage the Japanese were using it as a cheap
carbon source to case harden ball bearings.
The ethanol lobby is now being driven by Agforce (who represent
sorghum growers). The only opposition comes from lot feeders
(livestock industry) who see it as a threat to their traditionally
cheap protein source.
Manildra is currently the largest ethanol producer in Oz, using wheat
starch, and situated at Nowra AFAIK. Also heavily subsidised as
there's a healthy export market for wheat -- typically $200 plus per
tonne ex farm.
>
>Sarina Sugar mill produces a fair amount to but not enough to supply
>current E10 consumption (they sell to industrial users).
Historically, non fuel ethanol has been produced from sugar (CSR I
think) but it's not a viable fuel source unless heavily subsidised.
The sugar industry's hope is that sufficient sugar finds its way into
fuel production to take up the glut in world production that's
depressing prices. I imagine that they're fully aware that it won't
ever provide a viable market for sugar (the smarter ones at least).
Brazil is the only country with a significant fuel ethanol industry
based on sugar -- it's also the country that's able to undercut the
rest of the world (including Australia) on sugar production costs.
Brazil is also driven by a trade imbalance problem... ie it produces
plenty of sugar but can't afford to import petroleum based fuel.
US ethanol is produced from maize (the main summer rainfall crop grown
there) which has a similar natural market to sorghum (ie stockfeed).
AFAIK the US is currently mandated at E10 with a push to have it
lifted to E20.
The Australian ethanol lobby (Agforce) claims that ethanol has
delivered a 10¢ per litre reduction in US fuel prices.
It may not be widely known that during WW2 Australian brandy
distilleries were diverted to produce fuel ethanol (called power
alcohol at the time).
--
John H
The CSIRO study claimed that the Manildra product, because it was made
from otherwise useless by-products, could compete without a subsidy. So
the protection they receive is a gift. But the very limited volume of
available feedstock means it could only displace a negligible
proportion of the petrol supply.
All other feedstocks, including including waste cellulose like bagasse,
straw, require more energy to produce (often spectacularly more) than
the ethanol product can deliver.
In the case of grain - corn or sorghum - the amount of water consumed
is in the order of a thousand litres per litre of ethanol.
And how does adding something not far removed from vodka affect this
petrol-sniffing epidemic?
John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d23ng1djub71ts6l092u53f5hv5p4bu6vj@4ax.com:
> Brett wrote:
>
>>John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:01jkg1lea65vfh9nehl7qh4l2ce5ucusqa@4ax.co m:
>>>
>>> And what's the bet we'll have mandated E10 during, or soon after,
>>> the current term of government. The main source will be grain
>>> sorghum.
>
>>
>>Don't really see it. We don't produce a lot of sorghum and it's a
>>fairly high value stock feed. But we do get a lot of waste starch and
>>sugars from wheat and milk processing which could be used
>>(particularly down south). I think the largest ethanol producing in
>>the country is attached to a Milandra flour mill. Wasn't that where
>>all the Sydney contaminant was coming from?
>
> Sorghum is the main dryland crop grown in NE Australia (summer
> rainfall area). At a guess annual production is in excess of a
> million tonnes. The surplus is exported, which means that export
> parity usually determines the price. Current domestic price is around
> $100 per tonne. At one stage the Japanese were using it as a cheap
> carbon source to case harden ball bearings.
>
That was my point, sorghum is a small player in the grains market (wheat
is around 15Mta). However they could increase this by diverting
irrigation water away from sugar (Bowen is pushing this line of
thought). BTW the main dryland summer rainfall crop is lucerne not
sorghum.
The ethanol lobby is now being driven by Agforce (who represent
> sorghum growers). The only opposition comes from lot feeders
> (livestock industry) who see it as a threat to their traditionally
> cheap protein source.
>
> Manildra is currently the largest ethanol producer in Oz, using wheat
> starch, and situated at Nowra AFAIK. Also heavily subsidised as
> there's a healthy export market for wheat -- typically $200 plus per
> tonne ex farm.
>
>>
>>Sarina Sugar mill produces a fair amount to but not enough to supply
>>current E10 consumption (they sell to industrial users).
>
> Historically, non fuel ethanol has been produced from sugar (CSR I
> think) but it's not a viable fuel source unless heavily subsidised.
> The sugar industry's hope is that sufficient sugar finds its way into
> fuel production to take up the glut in world production that's
> depressing prices. I imagine that they're fully aware that it won't
> ever provide a viable market for sugar (the smarter ones at least).
>
> Brazil is the only country with a significant fuel ethanol industry
> based on sugar -- it's also the country that's able to undercut the
> rest of the world (including Australia) on sugar production costs.
> Brazil is also driven by a trade imbalance problem... ie it produces
> plenty of sugar but can't afford to import petroleum based fuel.
I love Brazil. Last year they increased their sugar production by more
than Australia's total good season crop. Sugar does not have a future
in this country.
>
> US ethanol is produced from maize (the main summer rainfall crop grown
> there) which has a similar natural market to sorghum (ie stockfeed).
> AFAIK the US is currently mandated at E10 with a push to have it
> lifted to E20.
But of course they have a lot more maize than we do sorghum. I don't
think that it is particularly viable to produce a crop for ethanol
unless oil rises further (around $65-$75). Environmentally it doesn't
make a lot of sense either.
Producing ethanol from waste (wheat or milk starches) does make a lot of
sense. You can, with a little effort, dewater the waste first giving
several saleable products (water, fuel, salt, binders, etc).
>
> The Australian ethanol lobby (Agforce) claims that ethanol has
> delivered a 10¢ per litre reduction in US fuel prices.
>
> It may not be widely known that during WW2 Australian brandy
> distilleries were diverted to produce fuel ethanol (called power
> alcohol at the time).
I think they showed it in the Sullivan's a few times (black marketing?)
>
> --
> John H
The primary reason behind the Canegrowers push is simple. They don't
have to change a thing and someone else has to spend the money. The
harsh fact is that cane does not have a real future here (or the US)
without protection and it is not worth protecting.
As an employer it is significant in many smaller coastal towns but it is
rapidly losing out to the mines. As a crop it's main advantage has
always been that it's very easy to grow on very small lots. That's
strangling the industry now and slowing any effective change. If you
want the ultimate seachange cane was and can be great particularly if
irrigated since it takes very little work.
Replacement crops? Hemp and Kenaf are probably the best. We could
completely eliminate old growth woodchip with Hemp production. But
politically you can't favour one region over another with the result
that both wood chip and cane are slowly dying. Rationalism means that
people need to follow the work. Unless there is a city large enough to
be self sustaining villages/towns and hamlets always wax and wane.
Representative politics means that this is not popular in Brisbane or
Canberra.
Cheers
Brett
Brett wrote:
>John_H <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:d23ng1djub71ts6l092u53f5hv5p4bu6vj@4ax.com :
>>
>> Sorghum is the main dryland crop grown in NE Australia (summer
>> rainfall area). At a guess annual production is in excess of a
>> million tonnes. The surplus is exported, which means that export
>> parity usually determines the price. Current domestic price is around
>> $100 per tonne. At one stage the Japanese were using it as a cheap
>> carbon source to case harden ball bearings.
>>
>
>That was my point, sorghum is a small player in the grains market (wheat
>is around 15Mta). However they could increase this by diverting
>irrigation water away from sugar (Bowen is pushing this line of
>thought). BTW the main dryland summer rainfall crop is lucerne not
>sorghum.
That does surprise me, on an area basis, though I was thinking grain
crops when I wrote it. Most of the lucerne I see in Q is irrigated.
In Q as a whole I'd also be surprised if total sorghum production
wasn't similar to wheat. In tonnage sorghum production would also
approach wheat retained for domestic use for all of Oz. Most wheat is
exported as grain and, unlike sorghum, it's a lucrative market.
The total amount of wheat processed here doesn't make for a large
quantity of waste product suitable for ethanol production.
In other words it's sorghum or nothing. My guess is that the
politically motivated choice will be sorghum.
--
John H
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:51:57 +1000, John_H wrote:
> It may not be widely known that during WW2 Australian brandy
> distilleries were diverted to produce fuel ethanol (called power
> alcohol at the time).
??? There's been a change?
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote