Energy & Nuclear

Ethanol can be made through the fermentation of many natural substances and used to run motorcars. There is some dispute about the net energy benefit of producing ethanol from food crops including corn, sugarcane is considered more efficient than most.

At the recent big biotechnology conference in Chicago an even more effective system for ethanol production from genetically modified (GM) sugarcane was announced by Farmacule and its research partner Queensland University of Technology (QUT):

According to Mel Bridges, Farmacule chairman, the company’s research team successfully modified sugarcane plants using the INPACT technology (and cellulases in the plant) to enable highly efficient conversion of cellulose into fermentable sugars after crushing. The remaining sugars can then be used efficiently to produce bioethanol, leaving the sucrose untouched and available for the consumer sugar market.

Bridges says that the concept, known as cellulosic bioethanol, is seen as the next generation of ethanol production techniques as it aims to produce higher yields per hectare at costs lower than current techniques.

“President Bush recently endorsed the cellulosic bioethanol approach, suggesting that it may come to market within six years,” said Bridges. “Farmacule’s genetic technology will make this a reality, producing viable plants that contain the cellulase enzyme to enable the cost-efficient production of ethanol as a byproduct of the sugarcane.”

Farmacule’s proprietary technology, Bridges added, would use cellulase in the sugarcane leaf material to convert cellulose to fermentable sugars that could then be converted to bioethanol. He said the use of this technology in bioethanol production is an important development in alternative fuels and offers strong benefits for sugar producers and the local and international economies.

“The key to our approach will be to generate plants in which the over-expression of high levels of cellulase is tightly controlled, and activated when required, using our technology. This ensures that the sucrose used for consumer sugar is not sacrificed in any way — we would just be using the waste that’s left after the sucrose is extracted,” he explained.

I had thought President Bush was backing hydrogen, rather than ethanol powered motorcars?

It is interesting this biotechnology breakthrough has come out of Australia, with the mainstream Australian media still running lots of antibiotechnology stories. David Tribe critiques a recent feature in Melbourne’s The Age.

And it is Brazil that has already mapped the sugar genome and already developed a viable ethanol industry.

Perhaps Australians are really innovative, an issue Thomas Barlow discusses in his new book ‘The Australian Miracle’?

In his latest book The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery suggests we can all do our bit for the environment including by considering buying a hybrid car.

However, according to CNW Marketing Research Inc. as reported at Auto Spectator, and they spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage, well, hybrid cars are not that energy efficient:

“To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.

The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents.

While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.

For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.”

And I recently bought a little red manual Ford Fiesta (non-hybrid) as my 17 year old daughter is now learning to drive. She is doing OK, but I keep my eyes closed a bit.

I attended the IPA’s annual H.V. McKay Lecture on Technology in Melbourne last night. Philip Burgess from Telstra was the guest speaker on the topic of ‘Future Proofing’.

He gave an interesting and wide ranging talk that included two reasons why we will never run out of oil:

1. As the price of oil increases, we will find more of it.

2. As the price of oil or any other commodity goes up, inventive people will start looking for substitutes.

He suggested there were all kinds of examples of ‘substitutes’ including: plastic for copper tubing, grain for fuel and aluminium studs for wooden studs in home building.

He also said that we should perhaps strive to use more, not less energy, because it is through the use of energy that we create wealth.

Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard has been visiting India and was on All India Radio with Prime Minister Singh. The interview was short and focused on Australian uranium.

JOURNALIST:
Sir, I am from All India Radio. I have a question for both the Prime Ministers. What are both of your expectations from this visit?

PRIME MINSTER SINGH:
India and Australia are members of the Commonwealth. We are two English-speaking countries. We have a large Indian community in Australia. We have nearly 30,000 students studying there. Our trade is expanding very rapidly. This is a unique opportunity for me and the Prime Minister to review the progress we have made in working together and explore new options so that our two countries can cooperate more intensively and diversely.

PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
This is a wonderful moment in the history of the relationship between the two countries to consolidate what we have achieved in the past and have in common but also to explore a lot of new fields. India’s economic growth, her influence, is very significant. India is now the fourth-largest economy in the world and in a short distance of time may in fact become the third. Its growth rate is very significant. We have a lot in common. We have the shared history and the shared love of certain sports that you’re very familiar with. All of those things bind us together and both the Prime Minister and I believe very strongly that now is the right time to achieve what you might call a quantum leap in the relationship.

JOURNALIST:
Dr Singh, are you hoping to buy Australian uranium?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH:
We would like to trade with Australia in all areas and we are short of uranium. We would very much like Australia to sell uranium to India.

JOURNALIST:
Would you like a deal on uranium done while Prime Minister Howard is here?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH:
Well I will discuss all relevant issues.

JOURNALIST:
Are you hopeful of Mr Howard acceding to your request for Australian uranium?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH:
We will discuss all these issues.

PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
I think we will talk about them and we’ll talk about them against the background of the policies and the needs of the two countries. Thank you.

In a speech to a business luncheon in New Delhi, the Australian Prime Minister said:

“Energy of course plays a critical role in our economic relationship and I know in your minds will be the agreement signed between the United States and India only three days ago regarding the nuclear industry. This will be an issue to be discussed between myself and the Indian Prime Minister later today and I will be interested to hear more about that arrangement and I will be interested to hear the views that the Prime Minister may wish to put to me in relation to it.

Australia supplies 25 per cent of India’s gold market, and Australian coal is used in more than 50 per cent of the steel that is produced in India. And with the large global increase in demand for energy, the international market for some resources – such as LNG – is extremely tight and I am encouraged that people from both India and Australia are working on these issues and I note that the leader of the Australian delegation Mr Charles Goode of Woodside is with us today and his knowledge of those matters is very, very impressive indeed.

The establishment of the Australia-India Joint Working Group on Energy and Minerals will be an important vehicle to address these issues. I am very pleased that this afternoon I will witness, with the Prime Minister, the signing of an Australia-India Trade and Economic Framework Agreement and this will provide an important basis for the facilitation and the future development of the trade and economic relationship and it will encourage closer strategic cooperation in many of the key economic sectors.”

While India would like to buy Australian uranium, Australia currently won’t sell to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that includes India and Israel.

But I get the impression something is going to change?

Interestingly the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty recognises ‘the right’ of the US, Britain, France, China and Russia – all permanent members of the UN Security Council – to have nuclear weapons but stops other countries from having nuclear weapons.

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush pledged $1.2billion in funding for hydrogen cars and mentioned a ‘Healthy Forests Initiative’ focused on reducing the impact of bushfires. Speaking to the American Congress he said:

…Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest.

I urge you to pass these measures, for the good of both our environment and our economy. Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined.

In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I’m proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car — producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.

Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

A story in the Weekend Australian reporting on a British government report outlined some alternative transport scenarios for the future:

Every journey will have to be justified, and face-to-face contact with colleagues, friends and relatives will increasingly become a luxury, with most meetings taking place via three-dimensional “telepresencing”.

… Foresight, the [British] Government’s science think tank, consulted 300 transport experts when drawing up its vision of how travel will change by 2055. It concludes that the growing demand for greater personal mobility is unsustainable and based on false notions.
Congestion should be tackled by making smarter use of existing capacity rather than by building roads and other transport links.
It states: “We cannot presume that we will have cheap oil for the next 50 years, (or that) we can respond to increasing demand by building more capacity, (or that) we will continue to have the right to move as and when we please.”

It proposes that people should be forced to pay the true cost of their journeys, including compensating for the environmental damage they cause. Charging for trips by the kilometre “would make people aware of the real costs of travel”.

… The report offers four scenarios for 2055, with the world’s willingness to adapt and ability to find technological solutions dictating which comes true. In the bleakest scenario, an acute oil shortage and lack of affordable alternative energy sources trigger a global depression. Economies collapse as businesses can no longer afford to move goods and people. People survive in increasingly isolated communities that have to learn to become self-sufficient, with most trips made by bicycle or horse.

The most optimistic scenario envisages that a cleaner alternative to oil is available in abundance, allowing greater globalisation to continue apace.

My colleague Alan Moran, had an article published in Melbourne’s Herald Sun on the weekend. I was interested in his comment about the relative cost of different electricity sources in a Victorian context. He wrote:

“Extracting carbon dioxide from brown coal, even in the embryonic pilot schemes now on the drawing board, would double the cost of electricity generation. Not only would this have a direct on the consumer but it would, at a stroke, undermine the State’s commercial competitiveness.

If we were serious about reducing carbon emissions we would be embracing nuclear power.

At least we know this is only double the cost of coal power.

But even such a modicum of commonsense wilts in the hands of ministers who are prisoners of the green left.

Mr Thwaites released a paper shortly before Christmas calling for a doubling of the electricity derived from wind power.

We know wind power is expensive and unreliable but in making the proposal, he did not even try to estimate its cost to the ordinary consumer or to the State.”