Australia grows plenty of sugar cane and it is used in ethanol production. However, the process is not as energy efficient as in Brazil. Currently our ethanol boondogle is minor compared to the U.S. We produce only about 1% as much. That's about 15% as much ethanol per person. However, ethanol production is growing. Fortunately subsidies for ethanol will be reduced starting in 2011, and the unfair tarrif on Brazillian ethanol should be reduced then as well.

Cool, combining the posts is a great idea as I could bring Peter Garret with me to Capital Hill and threaten to make him dance if Congress didn't agree with me.

The candy store paupers lie to the share holders
They're crossing their fingers they pay the truth makers
The balance sheet is breaking up the sky
So I'm caught at the junction still waiting for medicine
The sweat of my brow keeps on feeding the engine
Hope the crumbs in my pocket can keep me for another night
And if the blue sky mining company won't come to my rescue
If the sugar refining company won't save me
Who's gonna save me?

- Peter Garret

Cool.

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

Unlike many, I've really no problem with nuclear power, provided advanced design systems are utilized, appropriate safeguards/inspections and regulatory practices are maintained, on-site provisions are made to "burn" and store the waste produced, and security is provided by the National Guard. I'd prefer that the whole energy sector be nationalized rather than left to private industry which is more profit-driven than responsive to public safety and needs, but I can live with private sector control under the above conditions.

__________________
Iyam what Iyam

Stregone, my response, below, isn't to pick on you. However, your single, simple sentence echoes how most people feel about biofuels. Therefore, this is actually directed at the biofuel masses in general.

First, let me very clearly and unequivocably state: Except in ONE case, biofuels are NOT a good idea. In fact, it's an absolutely horrible idea on many fronts, which I'll delve into below. Let me also state that a decade ago, I was gaga over biofuels

What changed my mind? The facts, most of which are nowhere to be found in the glowing biofuel reports, er, "articles" found in the vast majority of mass media sources.

Preface:
When most people think of the term "biofuel," they think of fermenting vegatable matter to produce methanol, squeezing the vegatable matter to reclaim it's oils, or both. If both, the matter must first be squeezed, the oil removed from the juices, and the juices (which contains much sugar) returned to the mainly cellulose vegatable matter before fermentation.

However, oil, diesel, alcohols, gas, solids, and syngas are all First Generation biofuels.

We're currently studying fourth generation biofuels, folks, so if you weren't aware of that tidbit, you may not know as much about biofuels as you thought you did, or, at best, 98% of your knowledge came from the news, newspapers, various popular magazines on the various sciences, or the various green magazines which show you how to live in a sod home with 0 dependance on outside water and utilities.

Second generation biofuels are primarily from non-food crops, the non-food byproducts of food crops, or the non-oil/sugar byproducts of biofuel crops (mainly things like stalks and other cellulose-rich material). While promising, and right at home in the stomachs of cows, science has been working on this for years with very limited success.

Third generation biofuels include Algae fuel, whcih produce 30 times more energy per acre than land feedstocks. The Department of Energy estimates that an algae farm the size of Maryland (15,000 square miles) could replace 100% of all petroleum fuel used in the US.

Fourth generation biofuels involve genetically engineering microorganisms to turn CO2 directly into a useable fuel.

Main Body:

So - are biofuels good?

Biofuels raise many issues, and most of them range from very bad, to bad, to not good, to doing nothing more than maintaining the status quo.

For one, according to a recent report from the World Bank, all the hype about biofuels is largely responsible for the increase in food prices. In fact, they've caused world food prices to increase by 75%.

You must read the article - it's a hoot, particularly about their delaying publishing the report not to embarrass the US govt who claimed that biofuels were only responsible for 3% of the hike. Who are you going to believe? A bunch of political yes-men who's careers thrive on making the bosses happy? Or a financial institution who's long-term continued existence is founded on both accuracy and integrity? If you find yourself incredulous, read the article, as it explains why and how, something sadly missing in most government missives.

Their report was pre-echoed by the March 27, 2008 TIME article entitled, "The Clean Energy Myth," which states: "Politicians and Big Business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternatives to oil. All they’re really doing is driving up world food prices, helping to destroy the Amazon jungle, and making global warming worse."

Hmmm...

To their credit, the presence of biofuels and the looming possibility of further significant/substantial use of biofuels has knocked between 10% and 20% off what would be the current price of fuel if it weren't for biofuels (amounts vary depending on who you ask - the point is that biofuels compete with oil for market share, and capitalism being what it is, that drives down, and tends to moderate oil prices).

Unfortunately, biofuels are still responsible for the 75% hike in food prices. Most people pay between $200 and $300 in gas a month, but $500 in food. Which would you rather have? A 15% hike in your $300 gas bill? Or a 75% hike in your $500 food bill?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...

Again, to their credit, biofuels are carbon neutral. Whoopee. We're saving the planet, even though mankind's total contribution to global warming compared to all other sources is a whopping 0.28%. Well, we can make a dent in that, to be sure. Unfortunately, we can't make a dent in the other 99.72% of causes of global warming.

And, last but not least, according to many studies by various groups all looking at the biofuel issue from many different angles, the general consensus is that the cost of planting, fertilizing, irrigating, harvesting, processing, and shipping your average biofuel will save a whopping 5% over the cost of oil, and that's at today's prices.

Put simply, it's just not a cost-effective alternative, at least not the way the public is currently thinking about bio-fuels.

Finally, what of the alternatives? Solar? Wind? Tidal? Geothermal? etc., blah, blah, blah... I've said it many times before: nuclear, using grids upgraded from what's currently in place, and nano-whisker capacitor-batteries. Inherently (passively) safe pebble bed reactors, skip the nonsensicle "hydrogen economy" altogether, eliminate dependance on foreign oil, save our forests, avoid eye-polluting wind farms and coast-line changing tidal/wave machines, etc., etc., etc.

So - time for Pros and Cons:

Pros:
- Carbon-neutral
- Moderates and reduces oil prices
- Cleaner alternative to oil (less sulfer and other nasties)
- Cheaper (can be) than oil
- Potential to replace 100% reliance on foreign oil (but only with 3rd-generation algae biofuel)

Cons: - Bumps word food prices up far more than it saves by keeping oil prices down

- We're not there yet! (20 to 30 years before we have a sustainable basis)
- Not a cost-effective alternative
- Reducing/eliminating reliance (not just ours, but other countries) on foreign (aka, Middle East) oil will lead to turmoil in the Middle East as their income dwindles.
- Rapidly increasing (aka, "prolific") deforestation in anticipation of growing a "cash crop" is actually causing a carbon-positve result (more carbon in the atmosphere). And tall, dark forests are far better at removing CO2 than low-lying crops.

Conclusions:

1. Reducing/replacing reliance on foreign oil is a big incentive, no doubts there, but may exacerbate existing problems or cause further problems.

2. The only long-term, viably sound, cost-effective biofuel on the horizon is algae fuel.

3. The only long-term, viably sound, cost-effective way of solving our all our energy problems is to use nuclear, the national grids, and nano-whisker capacitor "batteries" (let's call them "capobatts," for short) when able (cars, homes, businesses, etc.), and biofuels where we can't (airlines, diesel trains, most diesel trucks, etc.). And to make MUCH more efficient homes and buildings.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

Your post seemed promising. I have heard from several sources that biofuel is not all it's cracked up to be, and that some of the rise in food prices is due to the race for biofuel production. However, you lost me with those two paragraphs.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

That relates to low EROI bio-fuels, like corn-based ethanol. In fact it does mention that "Brazil's transformation of sugar cane into fuel has not had such a dramatic impact".

Well, I´d say NO impact at all. We´ve been using it since 1977. Since then, ethanol production has increased by two orders of magnitude, while food production increased at the same pace, hunger has been eliminated and inflation has decreased some six orders of magnitude.

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

While your country is larger, you're but one country among hundreds, and Brazil was an early adopter, to boot. Early adopters rarely have much of an impact. The impact comes later, when many others begin piling on the bandwagon.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

And you lost me with this post of yours, which seems to say there's a problem, but doesn't mention any specifics, except that you're lost.

Lost how? With what? Do you find something confusing?

Without something more specific, about the only thing I can do is restate what you just said.

So, here goes: "It appears you're lost."

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

And, as always, the devil's in the details.
Basing their biofuel production on a non-food crop probably had more to say about the on-impact than being an early adaptor did.

Not doing it at the same time as a major world food crop failed, thus forcing farmers to switch to the new biofuel crop for feed probably helped a lot no not impacting the prices as well.

__________________
"God bless thee, my son; I will give thee the greatest jewel I have ...
"The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible."Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.