David Shearer is encouraging Labour MPs to focus on innovative businesses.
Dazza and I went to see a Green Diesel group in Alicetown. Great business with chance of making it big. Good experience in international oil. Into recyling.
Most important is the ability to massively reduce pollution from diesel – and to use their fascinating testing system to prove the results.
The first bus company or owner of service station chain that gets into this will win big.
Yay David, Dazza and Trev
I’m in Auckland today also meeting biofuel companies. Went down to Pukekohe and met with a small biofuels company making biodiesel from used cooking oil. Also went to see Gull, who are already blending their regular fuels with biofuels – so there is a retail chain already doing it. Unfortunately they haven’t made it any further south than Masterton – yet!
Doesn’t have to be biofuel Chris – though will work with blends – sounds weird but they are watering it down, using blending agent, not losing power, gaining efficiency and reducing pollution.
The world needs a truck engine that will run on 100% biofuels – sooner rather than later…
Jeremy
I hope the Royal Family of Saudi didn’t hear you say that
Or that nutter in Iran…
hehe
But soon or later its going to happen, we will run on bio fuels or electricity (battery). Luckly NZ has plenty of both.
Maybe Muldoon had it right all along… make fuel in NZ.
But there is that argument with Bio fuels which gos…
Should we use food to power our cars when there are hungry people in this world. Should land be devoted to growing raw material for bio fuel instead of food which could feed the world. Shouldn’t but its to late
But lucky we using cooking oil… which no eats any way.
I wonder if they could find a use for chippy oil as well..
and the fat from my bacon after it been cooked in my George Foreman Grill.
hehe
Forget acid rain, now it will be drops of oil
Biofuels are a strategic move in providing diversification in fueling.
It doesn’t mean more fuel can be used nor will it ever replace fossil fuel on the scale that they are consumed in NZ.
We consume 160,000 odd barrels a month but predicted to fall as supply dictates, and pricing climbs. One set of figures show a drop of approx 40% over 5 years ahead.
That will have a massive impact on how we do things. The fall is predicted to continue.
John Keys growth based economy is nonsense following what irresponsible money merchants want to hear. There is no plan for such based on sound evidence.
Recycling our massive waste to create liquid fuel also has many other options which are being explored locally such as converting sewerage sludge, plastic, tyres and a range of other carbon rich waste to fuel oil.
This will be best done by local councils.
A good socialist move would be to support councils in these community changes.
Fat chance of NACT doing that when they want to privatise basic local body services, for profit.
With all measures likely to be available and some careful management may provide fuel for our oil dependent food production.
Tractors run fine on bio fuels including crude animal fat based fuels, and recycled waste oils. These are not plentiful.
Traditional design diesels are more robust for such applications than modern low emission diesel systems designed to mitigate problems caused masses of cars used indiscriminately for the gross amount of travel done with vehicles each day.
Air travel is grossly inefficient and utterly reliant on cheap oil. Unsustainable on scale anywhere near what is promoted today. Don’t be lulled into thinking biofuels could continue air travel in place of fossil fuels.
Profit motives again driving an industry of unnecessary air travel and exploitation of finite resources.
Fertilizers are a waste of fossil resources and organics will probably prevail.
Agricultural production will decline to a sustainable level which may be well below present practice. Energy used in food production and supply will have to fall.
Costs will see to that as costs will also change transport as we know it.
We also need fuel for our trains which are many times more efficient than trucks on the road.
I don’t know if you recall, but there was a company here in Auckland that recycled/reprocessed lubricating oil for cars, trucks etc and was brought by BP and then promptly dismantled and shut down. They were based in Onehunga I think.
@ Hipkins – Did you know that Gull have a list of cars that CANNOT use bio-fuels (and motorbikes for that matter).
This has caused damage to numerous cars (many without their owners being aware). And apparently it is a matter of buyer beware when you fill up. Not even a warning sign on the pumps.
From the AA : “But the Automobile Association yesterday warned that many cars are not compatible with the E10 biofuel sold by Gull and using it could result in damage that may invalidate a car’s warranty.
“The arrival of Gull Force 10 in the New Zealand market offers motorists the option of choosing a more environmentally friendly fuel for their vehicles,” AA motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said.
“However, it is important that motorists only use it if it is compatible with their vehicles.”
He said using a 10 per cent ethanol fuel on a car which wasn’t designed to take it “could lead to a number of problems including fuel leaks and fuel line deterioration, and possibly invalidate your vehicle’s mechanical warranty”.
“If you don’t know whether your vehicle can use Gull Force 10, then the AA recommends contacting the vehicle’s manufacturer prior to filling up.” ”
They have to do a heck of a lot better than that and be a little more honest / professional in the rollout of products and INFORM the public.
My entire family boycott Gull because of this (it stuffed the fuel lines of one of my sons motorbikes)
That would have been Dominion Oil. I don’t know whether they were bought by BP or not, but I believe the process was always pretty marginal regarding costs. To collect dirty oil in small quantities, re-refine it and then redistribute to resellers or users would not have been a very competitive way to do business. It had to be sold cheaper than new oil, and I don’t recollect it ever being very popular.
Dominion Oil Refining operated until 1998 re-refining 7 million litres of oil per year, but closed due to poor economic viability and difficulty controlling environmental effects such as odour. Most used oil now collected is sent to Milburn Cement in Westport for use as fuel in the cement process, replacing coal which was a much dirtier fuel. Some specialist oils such as transformer oil are still reprocessed
Peter said,
“I don’t know if you recall, but there was a company here in Auckland that recycled/reprocessed lubricating oil for cars, trucks etc and was brought by BP and then promptly dismantled and shut down. They were based in Onehunga I think.”
I’m sure there is a plant still doing that, called ‘Aegis Oil’
located at Turua on the Hauraki Plains,
The IC engine and fuels that feed it is a highly researched and very mature industry. I’d just be cautious if I were you in accepting claims of massive performance improvements over and above what is available to the fuel in general. The fuel industry’s history is littered with such claims of improvements and revolutions in technology, many of which are bogus.
Shell is in trouble for its ‘new improved fuel’ which gave less than a 1% improvement in performance.
Your claim about emissions from diesel improvements just don’t smell right because the main thing biofuels are meant to be good for is particulates and sulphur. Well sulphur has almost been eliminated so any incremental reduction benefits are going to be very low. BD has known particulates benefits.
On the downside BD has lower fuel efficiency and increases NOx, but these are minor.
The big issue is whether the benefits are really worth the extra cost for infrastructure and production. Personally I don’t think so.
Maybe to boost our local bio fuel industry, “god for bid”. Use some tariffs and protections, look at Brazil. It did that and now a lot of there petrol is blend or pure ethanol.
red
Why does the local bio fuel industry need boosting? Do the local aeroplane building, car building and mobile phone making industries need it too?
Why, the answer is yes.
7 iPhones (0.98kg) = 1 tonne of milk powder (1000 kg) on the open market.
Do the math.
Whoops I just did, it turns out that an iPhone 1,020 times more $$$ per kilogram than milk powder.
“an iPhone is worth”
So Loota given that gold is worth over $60k/kg, your maths based philosophy would be the local mining industry needs boosting through, say, government support for mining national parks?
insider:
Well… it would help our LOACL BioFuel industry. It does need some protections or it will be slaughtered by BP,Mobile and other big oil companies which are quiet ruthless. Also the industry is still quiet young,small and fragile so it need some help.
Plus if we do it all NZ. It mean we not paying some foreign company for the life blood of economy.It creates jobs for us kiwis, keep profits in New Zealand and help us toward being self sufficient when it comes to our energy needs.
If we efficient enough to have vast surplus supplies we could even export the Biofuels.
I hope they can make Biofuel out of cowpats.
Also, do we want to be hold to ransom to the price of crude oil and the politics that go with it, do we want a repeat of the 70s. Given that NZ is a small export dependent nation, it make sense to become self sufficient. It means less import plus we wouldn’t be as affect by the price of crude or hold to ransom by Geopolitics. The way Iran and the middle east is things do look great. It stable but fragile.
Right now China and USA running around the world trying to secure supplies. NZ won’t even get a look in, we be left to sink. Plus it all going to run out supposedly so why not get a head now and get ready for when it all dried up.
Future Proofing…
If were going to have the ETS and all that silly rubbish.
We many as well do this as well.
Basically… bio fuels are imperative for a small isolated country like NZ in the future plus it would give NZ a more competitive edge.
Why that’s some fancy economic calculating there Loota and irrelevant. Let me try Methamphetamine around ~$700 a gram 0.98kg = $686000. That’s like 100x more $$$ per kg than iPhones! If only economics was about weight and all those other pesky things didn’t get in the way.
@John W:
Today’s Julia Hartley Moores… tomorrow’s Battletruckers.
Today’s Orange Countys… tomorrow’s Comptons.
@Red – ethanol gooooood
Hic, 
@ red
The oil companies aren’t interested in squashing the biofuel industry – it’s too small for them. They are more interested in squashing te regulations that force them to use it.
As for prices, well biofuels cost a lot more than oil. Now if they are a substitute for oil and the oil price rises above them, what do you think is going to happen to the price of bio fuel? It’s going to rise as well of course. So we are still captive to the price of oil.
There;s no guarantee the industry would be locally owned (as if that matters). the biggest potential biofuel player was a UK company – they’ve pulled out due to change of govt policy.
I’s basic technology. Let’s not invest until we need it.
Well I guess to Apple fanbois the new iPhone 4 is a bit like P…if that’s what you’re saying…
All other things being equal the economics of high value production work. The Taliban can finance a war against the American US$750B p.a. military juggernaut by the manufacture, distribution and sale of “high value product”.
Our poor country is going to get poorer and poorer (and dirtier and dirtier) the more it tries to leverage low value added primary commodity production as its main source of wealth.
The same argument goes for mining. A kg of silicon ore = $4. A kg of high performance silicon microprocessors = $40,000.
Which would you prefer to be manufacturing, marketing and selling?
Oh yeah, Mister R&D pro, and considering that it takes 10-40 years for any truly new technology to decently mature, you’re suggesting what? That we start digging the long drop only when we feel the need to take a dump?
Yeah that it’ll turn out well.
@Insider
“The oil companies aren’t interested in squashing the biofuel industry – it’s too small for them.”
Here a nice qoute for you from former Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Yamani he said back in 1973
“The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.”
Back then there where concerned, I doubt anything has changed. It will be in the back of there minds.
When biofuels start even to merely make a mark they will come after them like dogs.
“As for prices, well biofuels cost a lot more than oil. Now if they are a substitute for oil and the oil price rises above them, what do you think is going to happen to the price of bio fuel? It’s going to rise as well of course. So we are still captive to the price of oil.”
Markets don’t quiet work like that. Just cause one thing happens to rise doesn’t mean other thing would. It supply and demand. If biofuel supply is plentiful there won’t be much of a rise in price.
And currently the cost of biofuel is high becuase it still quiet primitive technology and waste process.
“There;s no guarantee the industry would be locally owned (as if that matters).”
Why did you think I advocated tariffs and protections.
And locally owned does matter, it mean more jobs for NZs plus all profit stays in NZ and also when oil drys up (if that happens) we will have own NZ based industry will be able to cope.
“I’s basic technology. Let’s not invest until we need it.”
We don’t even have the technology up to spec yet, it still quiet primitive and need to be developed more.
Plus if we invest when we need it, the technology will be rushed and will take years to grind out issues and during that time the economy goes fut.
So let get a head now while the going is good and time is on our side.
If we wait until we need it will be we to late.
National Radio Thursday night
A short report on oil.
National is in dreamland
The indefinites outweigh any strategy
There is not strategy to meet the definites
The un asked questions are very alarming
Answers to those asked were mildly caged but full of doubtful and indefinite optimism.
The inadequacy of elecric cars not taken up – as they still uses energy that we don’t have a source for.
No talk of reduction of energy use so the whole clip is misleading.
No mention of oil in relation to food production and supply.
BUT STILL WORTH LISTENING TO for a soft intro:
http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0004/2394814/ngts-20100902-2145-Energy_with_Ralph_Sims-m048.asx
We hear so little about this subject yet still the crazy talk of growth economy persists. They know it is what people want to here so it is said.
Finite oil at an increasing price in a world of INCREASING demand and consumption…… and after the growth?
Too difficult so ignore it?
@loota and red
Re technology, the creation of biofuels from either waste fats or crops is pretty basic – people literally do it in sheds. It’s well documented and quickly repeatable as shown by the number of small operators playing with it.
More complex is the creation of cellulosic ethanol and bio fuel from things such as algae. It is only this that has the potential for scaling of biofuels to any significant volumes. And there is no sign of a breakthrough there.
You are quite wrong on price of biofuels in a number of ways. Current prices are driven by scale of production, which low so limited ability to spread costs, and feedstock costs, which are expensive because there are multiple demands on the product. (If it were from a truly waste product wouldn;t that imply a really low value on the feedstock?) Mandates can also drive prices up by overheating demand.
In a situation of biofuel oversupply, it could disconnect from oil if production costs are lower, but all reputable energy reports only show biofuels taking up small percentages of energy supply in the foreseeable future. So it is going to be fundamentally tied to the price of its main rival oil, why would you pay more for it than you would for diesel? That is unless mandates distort the market.
insider
“technology, the creation of biofuels from either waste fats or crops is pretty basic – people literally do it in sheds.”
It still quiet primitive and fairly useless at this stage.
This is very much saying cars where invented when the wheel was!
“More complex is the creation of cellulosic ethanol and bio fuel from things such as algae. It is only this that has the potential for scaling of biofuels to any significant volumes. And there is no sign of a breakthrough there.”
Who know what the future holds….
Technology march’s forward despite what you think.
There a will, there a way. There will be a breakthrough.
And have you heard of Brazil, or has that flow under your radar. Sugar cane = ethanol.
But that have being doing bio fuels for 20+ years now. They started back in the 70s.
“all reputable energy reports only show biofuels taking up small percentages of energy supply in the foreseeable future.”
What, do they have a magic 8 ball. For the next few years YES but in 10 or 20 years time, honestly who knows.
Can they predict technology of the future, most of these guys get it wrong in predicting the technology around the corner.
Right now in Brazil they to take a occupy more than a small percentage.
“You are quite wrong on price of biofuels in a number of ways. Current prices are driven by scale of production, which low so limited ability to spread costs, and feedstock costs, which are expensive because there are multiple demands on the product.”
Why do you think I advocate of developing the technology more. So you can OVERCOME all these barriers. So it will have a large scale of production and make cost low as possible and hopeful use waste products.
“Mandates can also drive prices up by overheating demand.”
That why you must be careful when handling protections and tariffs. So just be cautious when applying.
What we need to do is drive up supply not demand.
There no point in causing demand if there no real supply.
“So it is going to be fundamentally tied to the price of its main rival oil, why would you pay more for it than you would for diesel?”
That mainly because production cost (crops,electricity) is still affected by oil. For now.
Develop the technology!
@red
We need to define terms here a bit as we are confusing 1st and 2nd gen biofuels. 1st gen are the basic ones that involve simple conversions of raw materials. Brazil’s ethanol from sugar is 1st gen, and Fonterra similarly produces it from whey. It’s a simple and well understood process so that is the area where I say it probably doesn’t merit huge research investment for the sake of it.
1st gen has the problem that it has limited capacity to expand as it is mainly using food crops or cropland. The land and product is also readily diverted to other uses meaning you can get producers chasing the dollar, leading to peaks and troughs in supply. Drought/floods become an issue too. Brazil is a good example, as the sugar can and does at times go to food production affecting ethanol production. Similarly Fonterra will divert production of ethanol to lactose if the price is right.
Fuel from algae and cellulose is 2nd gen. it is non commercial as yet and is where the research is needed, as this is where there are big barriers to commercialisation but relatively big opportunities for scale. Scion in Rotorua is working on converting wood waste and there is the Blenheim crowd doing work on algae. But there is no sign of a breakthrough after years of work globally, so it doesn’t make sense to plan on any great change in output soon. So investment is easy to say but highly risky.
As for price, you still don’t get it. Biofuels will track but not necessarily match oil prices because of their ability to substitute for oil as long as oil is the benchmark price. Biofuel sellers will sell their fuel at a price that encourages a switch and maximises returns. It’s nothing to do with cost of production, unless biofuels can’t be produced for less than petrol/diesel.
Has anyone yet mentioned Sasol in South Africa, who convert coal into gas and liquid fuels, profitably? While it is an old process, the company seems to have got it down to a fine art through necessity when SA was unable to import oil products in the 1950s. We have tons of coal, why not turn it into some sort of fuel instead of exporting to China for burning?
There’s talk of just such a plant in the otago.southland lignite fields. Doubt it will happen soon as oil price is too low and due to ghg issues.
Coal is still a fossil fuel. The release of that carbon is a avoidable issue.
We are not compelled to burn carbon and hydrogen natively but have developed a culture of doing so.
It is that culture which now has to be questioned.
As ingrained as the thinking might be and as pervasive as the organisation of our society is around excessive use of energy, changes will either be made deliberately or they will be forced.
Too many converging trends are apparent so warnings signs are ignored or denied increasing our peril.
Biofuel production has very limited scope in competition with other needs such as food.
While some recycling of waste can produce fuel, as we learn to have less waste then that source diminishes.
Waste also is a resource for fertiliser in food production and will be necessary as oil based fertiliser dries up.
Biofuel will give us options to service the energy need in distribution of food. Cities and centralization create transportation problems and plainly are energy inefficient for basics.
Rural life is closer to food sources.
Neither biofuel nor the mythical electric car solution can sustain the type of wasteful transport we use today as oil supply declines.
If we want to have oil around for a bit longer then conserving it now by changing our energy demand culture is the path to that. The time gained will assist in adapting to a less energy hungry existence.
The biggest problem is humans cooperating to plan a path forward.
Those with heavy investment in the military industrial sector of course have their answer albeit destructive and short term, with no real extension of oil.
Political power produces no energy but tend to consume many resources including energy.
Political leadership is needed towards long term solutions. It is a human problem not a resource problem we face.
Bankers talk about growth which is destructive in the long run. Cuckoo land.
“As for price, you still don’t get it. Biofuels will track but not necessarily match oil prices because of their ability to substitute for oil as long as oil is the benchmark price. Biofuel sellers will sell their fuel at a price that encourages a switch and maximises returns. It’s nothing to do with cost of production, unless biofuels can’t be produced for less than petrol/diesel.”
So that what you where meaning. In your earlier post I read different
. While oil is there benchmark price but if Biofuel becomes a threat the price of oil will drop and might just be able to squeeze out biofuels, so if Biofuels want to survive then really need to be cheap as possible.
The best way to “encourages a switch” is to make it cheaper than petrol. I look at the idea Biofuel is that can run the economy with out oil. Also this hopeful would lead to a more stable price, as there would be a competitive market, not some gravy train like we do have now with oil (OPEC!).
“The land and product is also readily diverted to other uses meaning you can get producers chasing the dollar, leading to peaks and troughs in supply. Drought/floods become an issue too.”
That always going to be a issue. Drought and floods are going to be there but in NZ case, we have an oversupply of land and crop for our domestic needs. So if NZ made it own bio fuel locally no drought or flood should affect it to much. Ideally the price for food and oil should be the same.
But biofuels dont have to be made out of things that food based but can be waste/by products. Plus we shouldn’t be reliant on one crop as well. Cause if you get a disease our how crop/harvest is wiped out.
“But there is no sign of a breakthrough after years of work globally, so it doesn’t make sense to plan on any great change in output soon. So investment is easy to say but highly risky.” But we still need to keep at it. Investment is high risk, maybe the government should do the research instead or help out in some way.
They have manged to make some small breakthroughs but we got along way to go.
“We have tons of coal, why not turn it into some sort of fuel instead of exporting to China for burning?”
but it not renewable thou.
Our local hippies (green party) won’t like that!
But that an option
“We are not compelled to burn carbon and hydrogen natively but have developed a culture of doing so.”
Cave man for some reason was attracted to fire!
I think some how he was compelled to… why, probably because he was bored.
“While some recycling of waste can produce fuel, as we learn to have less waste then that source diminishes.”
There will as be one waste, human/animal s##t, maybe that could be a source for fuel.
“mythical electric car solution”
NZ still have plenty of valleys to dam up yet, so if we become for efficient with the use of our energy, it could be possible. Have a small battery car.
“If we want to have oil around for a bit longer then conserving it now by changing our energy demand culture is the path to that. The time gained will assist in adapting to a less energy hungry existence.” True in deed, we are starting to do that now.
“The biggest problem is humans cooperating to plan a path forward.”True in deed, we will never do that.
“Bankers talk about growth which is destructive in the long run.” Bankers haven’t herd of cows… so they are in cook land. hehehe
Let’s all live in caves then
Ahem:
http://www.iogen.ca/cellulosic_ethanol/what_is_ethanol/process.html
The problem encountered with many answers plucked out of the blue is that supporting technologies may be inadequately resources also, and a declining availability of key materials that also require energy to process and transport.
Converting coal to “oil” using known processes requires large energy supplies and creates 3.3 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of “oil” extracted. The process is also very capital intensive, wasteful and expensive to run. Other wastes products are also produced which have to be deal with.
The footprint of batteries is much higher than grid based solutions. Materials to build batteries are already under global pressure of supply and that will increase.
The resources are finite and that creates further competition and diminishing economic supply.
Recycling is also energy intensive and wastes must be sustainably accommodated.
A hybrid Prius with its original battery has a footprint larger that a Hummer. When the battery dies then you recycle the car as a replacement battery if available, is worth more than the cars value by that stage.
More built in obsolescence which is aggravating our problems. Eco greenwash did promote hybrids but a closer look reveals they are not a sensible option for private transport. Under many circumstances a turbo diesel uses less fuel and is cheaper and lasts longer. ie is greener even before high battery recycling “costs” are included.
An estimate of near 30% of our electricity would be needed to run a substantial nation wide fleet of electric vehicles and that would not be anywhere near comprehensive replacement of oil based technology.
Our increasing demand for electricity and projected shortage of supply has not factored such a diversion of energy from that source. In other words the power is not there to do that. Our emissions in producing power have already risen over 90% since Kyoto.
Cars running on compressed air are extremely energy INefficient. The lack of a battery and emission from the car are appealing but emmisions from production of energy to run them and also production and eventual recycling of the vehicle still relevant.
More green wash surrounds them as a way of reassuring those who just don’t want to look at reality.
I note the comment about damming up more valleys but there again competition for other uses of the land does need rationalisation. Energy is not our only want.
Converting dairy land to biofuel production as an option may come about when export of dairy is not viable because of transport considerations. Such speculation is probably ideological at this stage as there are many other unknowns. Cropland where machinery is used needs to be relatively flat and competition with other crops will be real.
The growth that our capital system is dependent on drives us to options that don’t stand examination.
The clear option is to not expand but allow shrinkage and develop a better and sustainable system. To manage that inevitable change then the capital system, which is the problem, will change.
The reign of a sizeable section of population living off capital system and growth but not contributing to community production and care, will ameliorate.
There is a lot of thought abound about changes likely and certainly does not follow “more of the same.”
The world population is not sustainable and overshoot followed by crash is long predicted. Recent work by the CSIRO confirms that predictions are on track and possibly trends accelerated.
A contributing cause of our mess???
http://www.thenation.com/article/154458/busted-stories-financial-crisis?page=full
The cornucopian response has many drivers but regardless of perspective speculation is problematic without some clear line of evidence that can stand examination.
To off set references in the above link I do not subscribe to historic “prophets” included.
Biofuels and in particular biodiesel in the shorter term will be economic in facilitating our decline in oil usage, even if biofuel trebles in price.
No world agreement has been put into place about how oil decline is managed. It is in the hands of big players who are already consolidating their position by amalgamating. The world will be held to ransom as greed applies to opportunity ( unregulated freemarket outcome ).
Other possibilities must be politically driven in both price and supply restraint as well as alternative clean energy development.
http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/theprotocol
Uranium has peaked in conventional terms and most waste is still sitting around in the power stations that created it. Disposal has not been faced up to so a deadly legacy both economically and for human future is unresolved.