Queensland To Mandate Ethanol In Unleaded Fuel

ethanol
Nov 12, 2009
ShareThis

State Government announced this week that it will mandate a minimum five percent ethanol content in unleaded fuels sold in the state from the end of next year.

State Treasurer Andrew Fraser said the new law would see 183 million litres of fuel ethanol produced each year, providing new jobs and opportunities for farmers.

Speaking to state parliament this week, Mr Fraser said that a mandate would motivate investment in the ethanol industry.

Acknowledging that around 25 percent of car models cannot be run on ethanol blended fuels, Mr Fraser said that allowances would be made to ensure drivers still have access to regular and premium unleaded.

 

"The proposal would apply the mandate in such a manner that regular unleaded petrol would remain widely available," Mr Fraser said.

"The proposed ethanol mandate would apply to all petrol wholesalers and petrol retailers who own ten or more sites.

 

Mr Fraser said that this approach would have 73 percent of Queensland's petrol retailers selling ethanol blended fuels, while smaller stations could continue to offer regular fuels.

 

"As we confront climate change this proposal assists us now and more importantly into the future, through providing a platform for further research and development in next generation technology," Mr Fraser said.

 

Similar proposals in Western Australia have failed, with the WA Government announcing that it will not look to institute any mandate requiring any ethanol content in unleaded fuel.

Describing the WA Government's decision as "a victory for common sense", Australian Lot Feeders' Association President Jim Cudmore urged the Queensland Government to reconsider.

Mr Cudmore told Farm Weekly that ethanol mandates lead to higher grain and food prices, potential job losses, and huge compliance costs as the industry waits for more advanced ethanol technologies.

The Federal and Victorian Government have so far opposed ethanol mandates.

Related Stories

Comments

  • busacr [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    Now if they mandate B5 Biodiesel (thats 5% Biodiesel 95% diesel) as well we can get this ball rolling and get some investment in alternate fuels.
  • Kaiser [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    Sounds more like a revenue raising idea to me. Ethanol fuel gives you less economy, which in turn means you have to buy more fuel each year. More fuel means more excise and GST, which means more money for the Govt coffers. Just another way to bleed more blood from an already empty stone in the name of climate change.
  • AB [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    I have tried Ethanol mix fuels in a variety of vehicles and all of them began pinging. I now avoid any fuel that contains ethanol if possible.
    Wasn't large scale ethanol production also found responsible for price rises of basic farmed products such as grains, corns etc in South America?
  • auto [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    just another government rip off
  • Wardski [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    I work for a major fuel supplier, even the chemists don't like E10 in 91 RON fuels. Yes its marginally cheaper, but it burns quicker, and leaves nasty deposits on the cylinder heads (blacken quicker). If Anna wants to do this, then i hope its only in 91 RON fuels. If its going into 95 and 98 RON fuels, then the QLD state government can pay for all of the turbo motors going boom - its not just being able to run the fuel, its also about what tunes are on turbo charged cars (like Mazda 3 MPS, Subaru WRX, etc) and pre-detonation means the end to cylinder heads.

    From this, you can also assume that we're going to pay an added extra for cars, because they will have to be factory delivered with special with special ECU tunes (for QLD/WA only) as well - and not to mention that food prices will go up again - as proven by other ethanol mandates...

    The bottom line is that Anna, you're a complete Fkwit and you aint going to be around at the next election!
  • Matt [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    I seem to remember reading somewhere that Brazil's use of ethanol for fuel was a major part of the reason behind the large scale deforestation of the Amazon - more land to grow the crops used to make the ethanol. Hardly environmentally friendly there.

    @ AB: before the financial crisis there was wide scale protests in Mexico as the price of corn had risen 400% and pushed up the prices of many Mexican staple foods, due to its use in ethanol production in the US. I'm sure there are other examples as well

    An article in The Economist last year had the figures that 4 units of energy are required to produce 5 units of energy from corn-based ethanol. Other crops such as soya have a better return, more like 3 units to produce 5. With the effects of increased food prices, increased deforestation, fertilizer pollution, etc etc you have to wonder how big the benefit actually is
  • Mick [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    This is a short sighted knee jerk dumb idea.
    What happens in the not too distant future when more land is required to grow FOOD.
    And I'm not just talking Australia here.
    Sorry this land is owned by your friendly Ecopetrograin conglomerate, growing food here would dent our profits.
  • Simonsez [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    This really is something of a nasty precedent if the Qld Govt makes 5% ethanol mandatory . Wonder what difference it will make to those vehicles which already require 95 or 98 RON fuel given it's acknowledged performance deficits?Yet another concern would be the propensity for Ethanol blends to damage plastic/rubber fuel lines. Don't fancy my chances of successfully suing the Qld govt. over damage to my vehicle.
  • Morris [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    Typical Labour government, not putting much thought into anything.
  • troy [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    You wouldnt use it in boats either!

    I know that mixed ethanol blends hold their octane for a few weeks then get worse. Ive never had so much trouble with fuel going bad so quick. Had to drain the tanks and put back in normal fuel.

    That was after just 2 months! Useless. Apparently it soaks in the moisture from the air and becomes water itself!
  • Charlie [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    So smaller retailers can offer non-ethanol fuels? What about those of us whose car manufacturers specifically state that our vehicles should not be run on ethanol-blended fuels, but are worried about smaller retailers diluting their fuels to increase profits?

    I'll happily run my car on ethanol-blended fuels if the government pays for my engine to be rebuilt after all the seals are eaten through. Of course, the bad economy I get from a leaky engine might offset any apparent environmental benefits coming from this fuel, but then that would require more foresight than governments are reknown for.

    And I fail to see what changing the type of internal combustion fuel has to do with climate change. You're still creating an exothermic reaction with practically the same exhaust gases.
  • matt [reply]
    4 months ago 0 points
    trying to boost the qld suger cane industry would be my guess, where my parents live near bundaberg, there used to be cane farms all around them a couple of years ago, now the farms closest to them have swiched to cattle or other things because it was apparently to hard to make money from suger cane, but everyone here so far has raised a good point or 2, ive had it with this bull*** government too, i want cheaper fuel and rego not a ***in AFL field.

Post new comment

Want to join the discussion, or start one off?

Before you can get started, you'll need to log in to the TMR comments system via one of the services below (TMR Hub, Facebook, OpenID). If you don't have an account with any of those three, we'd recommend a TMR Hub account, so that you can take advantage of the great features that are just around the corner.

OR OR

(optional)
(not shown to others)


To comment, you must be logged in via one of the above methods.