There is now a website devoted to lobbying for Australian 'home-brew' biodiesel to be excise exempt.

www.biodiesel.id.au

There have been a number of people who have been working in conjunction with BEER to try and have homemade biodiesel taken out of the schedule of exciseable items.

Perhaps those industrious individuals should start posting what they have been up to on this website in order to get the rest of the Australian biodiesel scene up to speed on what is going on.

Presently the Senate is in session until 1 April. The Excise Tariff Act may come up. I was faxing letters to the members home office, but they are all in Canberra now so I am emailing their offices with a two page letter about the exemption.

I suggest anybody else that is interested in this issue (overseas contributions are welcomed) please send a message about the issue to the list of Senator's email addresses on the BEER website.

After the recent debates in the Senate, I have sent a letter to one of the Senators that made adverse comments about "Fuel Standards" and "Safety". Here is the main body of the letter. Feel free to plagarize the letter for your own efforts in writing letters.


FUEL STANDARDS
First from a legal perspective, there is no need for fuel standards for homemade biodiesel made for personal consumption. Under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 Sec. 12 creates the offence of supplying non-standard fuel. In Sec. 4 of the Definitions, supply is defined as - “supply” means supply (including re-supply) by way of sale, exchange or gift.

However, using a political and/or practical perspective to the view on fuel standards can revel more complex issues, as many times the standards are set for political reasons not technical reasons. For example, in Europe the former Din standard was used to keep American soy based biodiesel from being marketed in Europe. The Europeans created a fuel standard that required a maximum Iodine level that the European rapeseed could meet, but the American soy bean could not. The iodine level has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the fuel; the standard was solely a political move.

I should draw your attention to the Australian biodiesel standard as that standard may become a contentious issue in debate. In particular, the Australian biodiesel standard and its requirement for a minimum cetane level of 51.

The cetane level is a diesel fuel rating related to its igniting ability, similar to the octane rating for petrol. It has never been explained why the biodiesel standard was set so high. Many of the seed crops in Australia that could be used for biodiesel cannot be used to make biodiesel with a cetane level of 51. For example; safflower oil (49.8), soybean oil (46.2), sunflower oil (46.6) and waste vegetable oil (WVO) from shops and restaurants that contain many of these oils. In fact, one of the most desirable sources of quality WVO for the home brewer comes from Asian restaurants, which use soybean oil almost exclusively – biodiesel made from that oil would fail to meet the cetane standard.

Now here is the government’s problem. You see the cetane level for petroleum diesel is only 46 (Fuel Standard (Automotive Diesel) Determination 2001 – Sec. 3(3)). As you can see from my above comments, it is a fact that ALL biodiesel made from any feedstock will exceed a cetane level of 46. In other words, Australian petroleum diesel cannot meet the Australian biodiesel standard for cetane. It gets worse, the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme Regulations 2003 specifies a maximum cetane of only 35! So why is biodiesel set at 51 is anybody’s guess.

Moving on to safety aspects of the standards of the fuels we see that petroleum diesel must have a minimum flashpoint of 61.5C (see Sec. 5(2) of the Automotive Diesel Act) whereas biodiesel must have a minimum flashpoint of 120C (see Sec. 4(2) of the Biodiesel Act). Clearly, biodiesel is considerably more safer than diesel fuel and so much so that petroleum diesel can not even begin to meet the biodiesel standard.

To illustrate these two concepts of cetane and flashpoint; I have often added homemade biodiesel to some poorly manufactured petroleum diesel to improve the performance of the fuel, that is, to raise the cetane level so that the engine would idle better. Further, in regards to flash point, if a person puts diesel or kerosene in a kerosene lantern it will burn, but if you put in biodiesel the flame will go out.

Whether or not it is true, there are many in the biodiesel industry that believe the biodiesel cetane level was set at 51 so that cheap imported palm biodiesel (cetane 52+) from Asia could receive the government tax advantages and grants under the new grants scheme. When one looks at the lack of gel point and cold filter plug point specifications in the biodiesel standard, it tends to corroborate this position.

On a practical basis, I will also state that standards are usually broad enough to cover potential litigation problems. However, a person who makes homemade biodiesel can customize the biodiesel for their own engine. Commercial biodiesel has a conversion rate of around 96%. However, it has been found that a conversion rate of 90% is adequate for most direct and indirect injection engines. Many home brewers with indirect injection engines will seek to save a bit of money and produce 85% conversion fuel for their engines – it works just fine with no problems.

SAFETY CONCERNS
The requirements of safety as related to making biodiesel at home is similar to many everyday activities. For example; the heating of the WVO prior to the process only requires a temperature of 50-55C. Whereas people who want to fry battered fish, chips or spring rolls have to use a temperature in excess of 100C.

The methanol (alcohol) used in the process is less flammable (flash point of 12C) than the petrol (flash point of -43C) that people use in their automobiles, motorcycles and lawnmowers. Flash point is the minimum temperature at which fuel vapors can be ignited. As you can see, methanol can be down right difficult to light when the temperature drops. Methanol is regularly used as a fuel in motor racing and model airplanes so it has a long track record of safe use. If people can store cans of petrol safely in their sheds then they should be able to store a considerably less flammable liquid with even more safety.

The catalyst used in production of the fuel is common caustic soda. It is usually bought at the local grocery store. People often use caustic soda, drain cleaner and other corrosive materials in and around the house. Production of biodiesel is just one more use for caustic soda.

Finally, the biodiesel itself. I have already referred above to the high flash point of biodiesel and how it puts out the flame in a kerosene lantern.

TAX REVENUE
Perhaps this is the area that should be of the most interest to the government. First off, there just isn’t that many people interested in making their own homemade fuel. Even if there was considerable interest, there would be limits set by the amount of WVO that is available. The home brewer is not going to attempt to grow seed crops to make fuel, it is only the cheap WVO that makes it viable.

Perhaps drawing an analogy to homemade beer will assist. Although there are plenty of “do-it-yourself” beer kits in virtually every grocery store and supermarket, not that many people have taken an interest in homemade beer. Surely there are more drinkers in Australia than people that drive diesel vehicles, yet the interest in saving a bit of money (or making a better drop) by making you own beer is not that significant. Likewise, there will be many people who could, but will not, make biodiesel – they have other things to do with their lives.

Having said that, I know many people who do make biodiesel and they have related their attitude to me about the government’s proposed plan. (In case you are not fully aware of what is being proposed, please read the attached synopsis of the legislative requirements.). The negativity is overwhelming – those people are not going to get a license, or keep records, or pay excise. There has been a requirement to get a license since last September, it would be instructive to inquire of the ATO to find out how many people have decided to accept the government’s proposal.

If the system goes ahead, there will be little or no revenue coming from these people. What is apparent is that there is a willingness to campaign against the government and to turn this issue into another arrow in the quiver of the opposition - Big government against the little battler.

There is nothing to gain by the proposed system; there is a good potential of loss at the polls for running with the proposed system. The government can take the high ground on the issue (and the kudos) and come out on the side of the little aussie battler. Perhaps the Liberal party could take the initiative now and make it a Liberal amendment rather than allow the opposition parties to make political mileage of it the next time it comes up for debate.

Once again the goal posts have been moved. Now it seems the government is more concerned with how homemade biodiesel may affect air pollution.

Does anybody have any data that we can use to address this point? Have there been any studies done anywhere in regards to this concept?

I am sure that everyone knows that even 85% converted oil will reduce emissions, but can we get some authoritive information to give to the politicians?

The debates on the homemade biodiesel exemption will likely be on or soon after 15 June. We need to get this information to the Parliament as soon as possible.

surely home made biod will affect the air in much the same way as a bought one, which has well established and documented benefits.

The only significant differences in the fuel are the presence of methanol if unwashed and unreacted veg oil if methanol is skimped. Methanol burns to water and carbon dioxide. Unreacted veg oil in biod will burn like veg oil itself, also well researched and documented.

Neutral,

You don't waste any time do you? No sooner had I posted the last message and you replied.

It seems that the politicians are ok with the "standards" and safety issue. So now they (allegedly) are concerned with whether or not poorly made biodiesel would be more polluting than regular petrol diesel.

I suppose if an analysis was done of say 85% converted oil (probably the worst case of homemade biodiesel), then that may placate them.

Perhaps a chemical analysis of what 85% converted oil is composed of coupled with an analysis of the pollution of 96% converted oil from a commercial plant.

An analysis of what burning glycerin emits might be of assistance.

If the 85% conversion contained X amount more glycerin, then it would have Y amount of extra whatevers.

Was there any air quality tests done of straight vegetable oil? That might be the easiest way of addressing the issue.

Terry,
I gave Paul all ot that information when the Democrats wanted it.
Neutral is correct.
The issues with home made biodiesel are :
Unreacted / partially reacted veg-oil
Methanol content.

I gave Paul references to the use of Veg-oil fuel exhaust emissions.
Methanol is currently used as a fuel in drag racers, model aircrafe, etc, with no exhaust treatment.
FYI, the references to veg-oil exhaust emissions can be found HERE

Well said Terry Sid, now thats what I call plain english, or is it plain Australian? Either way I got the gist of it.

Your and every other Australians problem is that you live in one of the ex colonies. The Australians have adopted the British system of screw the folk at the bottom of the heap. If it can be taxed then tax it.

Another problem is Politicians think they are more important than they really are (idiots) sorry Shaun it wasn't my fault this lot know I dont like politicians so blame the members.

At your MPs next surgery ask him/her what he/she is going to do for your cause? if you dont like the answer just remind him/her that you put them in their present position to represent you and you can vote them out, that'll frighten the crap out of them cos they aint much use anywhere else

regards keith

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Syd:
After the recent debates in the Senate, I have sent a letter to one of the Senators that made adverse comments about "Fuel Standards" and "Safety". Here is the main body of the letter. Feel free to plagarize the letter for your own efforts in writing letters.


FUEL STANDARDS
First from a legal perspective, there is no need for fuel standards for homemade biodiesel made for personal consumption. Under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 Sec. 12 creates the offence of supplying non-standard fuel. In Sec. 4 of the Definitions, supply is defined as - “supply” means supply (including re-supply) by way of sale, exchange or gift.

However, using a political and/or practical perspective to the view on fuel standards can revel more complex issues, as many times the standards are set for political reasons not technical reasons. For example, in Europe the former Din standard was used to keep American soy based biodiesel from being marketed in Europe. The Europeans created a fuel standard that required a maximum Iodine level that the European rapeseed could meet, but the American soy bean could not. The iodine level has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the fuel; the standard was solely a political move.

I should draw your attention to the Australian biodiesel standard as that standard may become a contentious issue in debate. In particular, the Australian biodiesel standard and its requirement for a minimum cetane level of 51.

The cetane level is a diesel fuel rating related to its igniting ability, similar to the octane rating for petrol. It has never been explained why the biodiesel standard was set so high. Many of the seed crops in Australia that could be used for biodiesel cannot be used to make biodiesel with a cetane level of 51. For example; safflower oil (49.8), soybean oil (46.2), sunflower oil (46.6) and waste vegetable oil (WVO) from shops and restaurants that contain many of these oils. In fact, one of the most desirable sources of quality WVO for the home brewer comes from Asian restaurants, which use soybean oil almost exclusively – biodiesel made from that oil would fail to meet the cetane standard.

Now here is the government’s problem. You see the cetane level for petroleum diesel is only 46 (Fuel Standard (Automotive Diesel) Determination 2001 – Sec. 3(3)). As you can see from my above comments, it is a fact that ALL biodiesel made from any feedstock will exceed a cetane level of 46. In other words, Australian petroleum diesel cannot meet the Australian biodiesel standard for cetane. It gets worse, the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme Regulations 2003 specifies a maximum cetane of only 35! So why is biodiesel set at 51 is anybody’s guess.

Moving on to safety aspects of the standards of the fuels we see that petroleum diesel must have a minimum flashpoint of 61.5C (see Sec. 5(2) of the Automotive Diesel Act) whereas biodiesel must have a minimum flashpoint of 120C (see Sec. 4(2) of the Biodiesel Act). Clearly, biodiesel is considerably more safer than diesel fuel and so much so that petroleum diesel can not even begin to meet the biodiesel standard.

To illustrate these two concepts of cetane and flashpoint; I have often added homemade biodiesel to some poorly manufactured petroleum diesel to improve the performance of the fuel, that is, to raise the cetane level so that the engine would idle better. Further, in regards to flash point, if a person puts diesel or kerosene in a kerosene lantern it will burn, but if you put in biodiesel the flame will go out.

Whether or not it is true, there are many in the biodiesel industry that believe the biodiesel cetane level was set at 51 so that cheap imported palm biodiesel (cetane 52+) from Asia could receive the government tax advantages and grants under the new grants scheme. When one looks at the lack of gel point and cold filter plug point specifications in the biodiesel standard, it tends to corroborate this position.

On a practical basis, I will also state that standards are usually broad enough to cover potential litigation problems. However, a person who makes homemade biodiesel can customize the biodiesel for their own engine. Commercial biodiesel has a conversion rate of around 96%. However, it has been found that a conversion rate of 90% is adequate for most direct and indirect injection engines. Many home brewers with indirect injection engines will seek to save a bit of money and produce 85% conversion fuel for their engines – it works just fine with no problems.

SAFETY CONCERNS
The requirements of safety as related to making biodiesel at home is similar to many everyday activities. For example; the heating of the WVO prior to the process only requires a temperature of 50-55C. Whereas people who want to fry battered fish, chips or spring rolls have to use a temperature in excess of 100C.

The methanol (alcohol) used in the process is less flammable (flash point of 12C) than the petrol (flash point of -43C) that people use in their automobiles, motorcycles and lawnmowers. Flash point is the minimum temperature at which fuel vapors can be ignited. As you can see, methanol can be down right difficult to light when the temperature drops. Methanol is regularly used as a fuel in motor racing and model airplanes so it has a long track record of safe use. If people can store cans of petrol safely in their sheds then they should be able to store a considerably less flammable liquid with even more safety.

The catalyst used in production of the fuel is common caustic soda. It is usually bought at the local grocery store. People often use caustic soda, drain cleaner and other corrosive materials in and around the house. Production of biodiesel is just one more use for caustic soda.

Finally, the biodiesel itself. I have already referred above to the high flash point of biodiesel and how it puts out the flame in a kerosene lantern.

TAX REVENUE
Perhaps this is the area that should be of the most interest to the government. First off, there just isn’t that many people interested in making their own homemade fuel. Even if there was considerable interest, there would be limits set by the amount of WVO that is available. The home brewer is not going to attempt to grow seed crops to make fuel, it is only the cheap WVO that makes it viable.

Perhaps drawing an analogy to homemade beer will assist. Although there are plenty of “do-it-yourself” beer kits in virtually every grocery store and supermarket, not that many people have taken an interest in homemade beer. Surely there are more drinkers in Australia than people that drive diesel vehicles, yet the interest in saving a bit of money (or making a better drop) by making you own beer is not that significant. Likewise, there will be many people who could, but will not, make biodiesel – they have other things to do with their lives.

Having said that, I know many people who do make biodiesel and they have related their attitude to me about the government’s proposed plan. (In case you are not fully aware of what is being proposed, please read the attached synopsis of the legislative requirements.). The negativity is overwhelming – those people are not going to get a license, or keep records, or pay excise. There has been a requirement to get a license since last September, it would be instructive to inquire of the ATO to find out how many people have decided to accept the government’s proposal.

If the system goes ahead, there will be little or no revenue coming from these people. What is apparent is that there is a willingness to campaign against the government and to turn this issue into another arrow in the quiver of the opposition - Big government against the little battler.

There is nothing to gain by the proposed system; there is a good potential of loss at the polls for running with the proposed system. The government can take the high ground on the issue (and the kudos) and come out on the side of the little aussie battler. Perhaps the Liberal party could take the initiative now and make it a Liberal amendment rather than allow the opposition parties to make political mileage of it the next time it comes up for debate.

---

Concerns have been expressed about use of unwashed biodiesel. The only reference I have spotted so far states that addition of ethanol to veg oil reduces soot production. The methanol in unwashed biod should do the same.

Keith J

Why don't you edit out all that repetition?

I wanted to open a new discussion topic in the General Biodiesel forum , but I don't know how to do it.

I wanted to see if anyone had some authoritive study on the pollutants of various levels of esterfied oils used in a diesel engine.

Can anyone open the topic for me?

Here is the text of the one page reply to the latest hoop to jump through.

HOMEMADE VRS COMMERCIAL BIODIESEL

The question has been asked as to whether homemade biodiesel is more polluting than commercial biodiesel. The simple answer is NO. In fact, when homemade biodiesel is made to high standards it can be of similar quality and even EXCEED the qualities of commercial biodiesel.

However, if for arguments sake, a biodiesel batch did not achieve full oil to biodiesel conversion, the increase in unprocessed oil does not constitute a significant pollutant to the environment. The CSIRO’s report on Comparison of Transport Fuels to the Australian Greenhouse Office looked at various fuels such as petrol diesel, canola oil and biodiesel. In their final report it was stated, “Canola is made from agricultural crops and is widely perceived to be more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.” Thus, even though there may be a small increase in unprocessed oil in the biodiesel – the resulting biodiesel fuel is always more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel, even if none of the oil was converted to biodiesel!

In comparing the environmental impact between commercial and homemade biodiesel, the equation is tilted more strongly to homemade biodiesel (even poorly made homemade biodiesel) because of the feedstock commonly used in the production of the homemade biodiesel. Commercial biodiesel relies upon purposely grown crops such as canola. The feedstock for homemade biodiesel is waste vegetable oil (WVO), that is, “fish and chip” shop oil.

Looking at the CSIRO’s “life-cycle” analysis of various transport fuels it is clear that biodiesel made from WVO scored the best. It had the least amount of emissions of greenhouse gases out of all the feedstock used to make biodiesel. In fact, it has approximately 10% of the greenhouse gases that commercially grown canola biodiesel creates. It is virtually impossible for even the poorest quality biodiesel from WVO to even come close to reaching the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from commercial biodiesel that has been made from purposely grown crops.

Further, the conversion of WVO to fuel not only helps with the air quality, but also with minimizing land degradation. As the CSIRO state, “It is also clear that some waste cooking oil is not collected and is disposed of in landfill and other locations”. Clearly, if such WVO could be utilized in making environmentally friendly fuel, then that utilization is a preferable course for government to pursue and encourage.

Please see the attached Biodiesel summary from the CSIRO for more information:

I need to find someone in the Sydney area that has a presentable backyard biodiesel set-up for a photo shoot with the media.

This is part of a media program by the ABC on homemade biodiesel. They are on our side of this debate with the government. The program is going to air this week 21-25 June, so contact me ASAP!

Give me your phone number and I will call you.

If you have

Looks like the TV program on homemade biodiesel will air tonight at 7:30 on ABC. Check out the 7:30 report.

I got a call from the interviewer of the 7:30 Report program on homemade biodiesel. Seems like the Liberal Party has now taken an interest in the issue. Ian McFarlane is apparently saying that the legislation was only meant to apply to commercial producers.

Hey Ian!, what the hell were the Liberals debating in the Senate?

The program is on hold while the Liberals go into damage control.

I'll keep everyone up to date as things unfold.

Here is a link to the 7:30 report article transcription.
I cannot understand why one of our senior politicians, IAN MACFARLANE, is telling us to break the law.
Unfortunately, if you were caught and charged with exading excise on biodiesel, the defence " Ian Macfarlane told me I didn't need to register or pay excise" would not work. You may have heard recently, of a fisherman in WA, who asked for a definition of the permitted fishing area, and acted on the written response - he was still found guilty of fishing in the wrong area.

Tony, McFarlane really got caught out on this issue. I had sent Coonan everything on the issue and not only did she not recognise the value of it - she didn't even give me a courtesy "thank you" letter for the information. She probably took the "From the fryer to the fuel tank" book I sent her and dropped it in the trash.

As far as McFarlane trying to mitigate his previous statements with the agrument that if people make it for themselves the tax office will never know - that is how ALL tax evasion works. Just keep the tax office in the dark - so what happens when the light comes on in the tax office?

Right now, the tax office has seen me making biodiesel on TV, but since this issue is topical right now, it is likely nothing will happen. However, what about in 6 months when the govenment wants to just target selected persons? Then they can pick and choose who they want to get rid of - the laws on the books will allow them that opportunity.

This fight isn't over. Labor stands in a good position to run with it. They said in the Senate that they wanted to look at the issue a bit more. Now they can come out and say that they support it.

I strongly suggest that anyone who is interested in getting the government off their back on the homemade biodiesel issue to start sending letters and faxes to the Labor Party. If Labor gets enough interest over the next few days, they might take up the issue.

I should add that the time allocated to McFarlane pushed out some of my other comments. Here are a couple of lines that were edited out.

Matt - "What do you think of the government's inititives on alternative energy?"

Terry - "The government is giving away 50 million dollars of taxpayers money on alternative energy. I'm a taxpayer, you're a taxpayer - I don't want your money, I just want the government to get out of my way"

or

Terry - "Same old story, someone invents something in Australia and then has to go overseas to develope it"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Terry Syd,

Here is the text of McFarlane's press release -22 June 2004

$24 MILLION BOOST FOR BIOFUELS INDUSTRY

Five biofuels projects in four states have today been offered grants totalling $24.6 million under the first round of the Australian Government’s Biofuels Capital Grants Program.

Federal Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, today announced details of the two ethanol-based and three biodiesel-based projects.

“The grants offered today are expected to generate new project investment of more than $50 million and directly create almost 100 new jobs,” said Mr Macfarlane.

“Four of the five projects are regionally-based so today’s announcement is a major boost for the smaller country communities that will benefit from the substantial flow-on effects of new business, jobs and investment,” he said.

The successful applicants are:

• CSR Distilleries Operations, an ethanol plant at Sarina, Qld ($4.16m);
• Biodiesel Industries Australia, a biodiesel plant at Rutherford, NSW ($1.28m);
• Schumer Pty Ltd [Rocky Point Sugar Mill and Distillery], an ethanol plant at Woongoolba, Qld ($2.4m);
• Biodiesel Producers Ltd, a biodiesel plant at Barnawatha, Victoria ($9.6m); and
• Australian Renewable Fuels Pty Ltd, a biodiesel plant in Port Adelaide, SA ($7.15m).

These are one-off capital grants for projects that were competitively judged by Invest Australia to be the best prepared for commercial operation.Of the 41 applications received, 22 were biodiesel-based and 19 were ethanol-based.

“This program builds on the Australian Government’s commitment to broaden the fuel mix in this country and comes on top of long-term excise concession for biofuels announced earlier this year.”

“The sugar industry is a big winner from these grants which will help the biofuels industry pursue production efficiencies, enabling them to compete in the long term without government assistance,” said Mr Macfarlane.

All unsuccessful applicants will be offered a full de-brief on their application by Invest Australia and will also have the opportunity to apply for a share of the $13m available under the program’s second, and final, round.

For further details on the Biofuels Program visit: www.investaustralia.gov.au/biofuels.

Here is Bob Gordon's press release -22 June 2004


Biofuels Grants Disappointing

The renewable fuels industry in Australia is disappointed that the Government has bowed to the refusal of the Australian oil companies to provide assurances they will take up and use Australian produced renewable transport fuels.

In doing so the Government has handed Australia’s foreign-owned oil companies effective veto power to severely limit the construction of well funded ethanol and biodiesel projects in rural and regional Australia, and the economic and jobs benefits they can deliver to these communities.

Today’s announcement puts economic and jobs growth in rural communities in Queensland, NSW, and Victoria such as Dalby, Millmerran, Beaudesert, Forbes, Gunnedah, Quirindi, and Swan Hill, etc., at risk.

The abandonment of grain as a well-demonstrated means of producing ethanol and other high-value byproducts (eg protein meal for animal feedlots) by a Minister from a major grain growing region in Australia is also disappointing

Advice given to the industry is that major ethanol and biodiesel projects were not accepted because they could not provide assurances that the ethanol or biodiesel they produced would have a major oil company buyer. As a consequence 40 million litres (ML) of ethanol will be delivered in QLD, rather than 400 ML of new ethanol production spread throughout QLD, NSW and Victoria.

While welcoming the support given to small ethanol and biodiesel projects, the Executive Director of Renewable Fuels Australia, Bob Gordon, noted that high volume biodiesel plants with strong business plans (including assured non major oil company offtake arrangements), and the capacity to produce an additional 200 ML of biodiesel per year, were also uniformly ignored by the Government.

Initially $50 million was allocated under the Biofuels Capital Grants Scheme. Without explanation this was reduced to $37.6 million. Questions will now arise about the $13 held back for an expected second round of applications.

The claim that raising ethanol production from sugar cane in QLD from 4 ML to 44ML (a tenfold increase) is a major step forward is hollow, and may not bode well for future Coalition support for ethanol product diversity in the Queensland sugar industry.

For more information contact Bob Gordon: (0418) 868 526.

OK, I don't have any information on who these lucky recipients of tax-payers money are. Perhaps someone in the know can give the rest of us some background on who they are and their affiliations with big oil, government or who ever - and their experience with making biodiesel?