Farmers in North Queensland are doing their bit to be environmentally friendly by investing in a tree that produces diesel.
Mike Jubow, a former cane farmer and now a nursery wholesaler, says diesel-producing trees are a long-term investment.
“If I’m lucky enough to live that long enough – I’m 64 now – it is going to take about 15 to 20 years before they are big enough to harvest the oil so that I can use them in a vehicle,” he said.
Read the entire ABC News article, ‘Qld farmers invest in diesel-producing trees’
There’s also a similar article in The Syndney Morning Herald, ‘Farmer planning diesel tree biofuel’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
There is some contorted reasoning in this proposal – if palnting trees to produce diesel is the preferred option, then why wait for 15 to 20 years for the soddy things to grow and mature, when you can use biofuel that has been made in previous geological epochs?
Isn’t fossil fuel actually old biodiesel?
So one one hand they want us to stop burning fossil fuels (old biodiesel) and on the other hand to plant trees to create new biodiesel.
This is why one cannot take AGW’ers and greenies too seriously – they are, paraphrasing Danish comedian Victor Borge – just plain stoopid.
Isn’t fossil fuel actually old biodiesel
there is an interesting point.
If you are a farmer who is hard-strapped to pay for sky-high fuel costs, why not learn to grow your own fuel? It has nothing to do with climate alarmists or the green movement. Just economics.
If he is cash-strapped now, but has to wait 15 yewars at a minimum, what about affording fuel during the waiting period. There is a lack of economic reasoning here.
Louis – “So one one hand they want us to stop burning fossil fuels (old biodiesel) and on the other hand to plant trees to create new biodiesel.”
This is a turnaround Louis. Don’t tell me that you have abandoned abiotic oil.
“This is a turnaround Louis. Don’t tell me that you have abandoned abiotic oil.”
Oh sh*t! Here we go again! Another thread down the tubes!
How very original. Another nursery operator spruiking a miracle tree that will take 15 to 20 years before anyone gets to test the veracity of his claims. And the report didn’t even bother to provide the name of the species so we can run the usual checks.
I have a very detailed and comprehensive exposure to the plantation and so-called “farm Forestry” sectors and can advise that there are still thousands of unsold hectares of Caribean Pine all over Nth Qld that are a constant reminder of the most important principle in respect of the mooted benefits of “furniture timber” and trees on farms. That core principle is “Caveat Emptor”, let the buyer beware.
Nurserymen are NEVER around when the rhetoric is reconciled with the reality. Now where is that barge pole?
And the report didn’t even bother to provide the name of the species so we can run the usual checks.
One from Mexico Jathropha curcas butt it’s a shrub.
Another from Brazil Cobaifera langsdorfli i think this is the one
http://www.horizonrural.com.au/CM%20Articles/Biodiesel%20from%20trees2.pdf
My preference would be for the Aussie native mentioned in the article Milletia pinnata, which matures faster and is less likely to to turn into an ecological disaster.
The second article in the lead post says it is Cobaifera langsdorfli.
Nobody is compelling anyone to plant it – it’s simply “of interest” and the payback time is well acknowledged.
The first article says “they are known as a secondary successional tree, which means they will grow in the shade of other trees so it is wise to plant them as a mixed plantation with other faster-growing trees.”
Ender,
I am just pointing out the total vacuity of the Biofuel proposal – after all if we assume that petroleum is biotic, then why are we being told to stop using it but to instead plant a new source of biotic tree-oleum.
As for your diversionary tactic, forget it, it’s off thread totally and nothing to do with the issue here.
But I do know how to catch ’em good.
Aye !
Waiting 15-20 years seems nonsensical considering the investment required to both aquire land and establish the tree crop. It would be better to follow the scandinavian example where biofuel crops are grown on a short rotation of up to 5 years then harvested with what appear to be a form of modified header (no long rotating thingy stuck out across the machine).
The trees themselves are established in vastly larger numbers than traditional plantation crops (up from 1000 stems/ha to 8-10,000 stems/ha) and harvested when approximately 2-4 cm diameter. Getting the the new gassification and then gas to oil techniques to work economically is the real issue.
Ultimately getting the crop to harvest at the earliest date allows a return on investment over a more reasonable timeframe.
Essentially the biofuel issue is about the recycling of carbon on a timescale that provides a level of comfort to both regulators and consumers. It is not a substitute for reduced emissions, or displaced emissions which is what many greens want.
Meanwhile, vegetation thickening is adding 90 million tonnes of carbon to over 90 million hectares of our native woodlands and it is not being measured as a carbon credit.
And to top that piece of green absurdity, Aila Keto convinced her mate Beattie to exclude all native forest wood (including problem regrowth that impairs river flows) as a source stock for co-generation purposes in Qld. Ditto for NSW.
Neat bit of gross stupidity, don’t you think?
First pretend it isn’t growing at all.
And when it clearly has grown, pretend it is old growth forest that was always there and must be protected.
Then pretend that there are no adverse environmental impacts from too many trees in excess of the natural footprint.
And after ensuring that this major source of carbon re-cycling is completely out of the options mix, then pretend that you have done your best for your children’s future.
And then stooge some sad clutch of semi-retired tree-changers to blow their savings on planting trees in a landscape where the major environmental problem is too many trees that grow all by themselves.
It as dumb as duck$hit.
Jan/Louis:
Fossil fuels are made of carbon captured over many millions of years (hence lowering the atmospheric CO2). Bio-fuels like this proposal capture carbon out of the air today which we then release when burnt, i.e. a carbon nuetral cycle. We can only raise atmospheric CO2 by burning the already sequestered underground fossil fuels.
Or did I not get the joke?
NicM
No joke, and capturing carbon via biofuels takes a short time and also removes carbon from the atmosphere, only to be burnt 15 years later.
Apart from the length of time, there isn’t much difference, if any, in principle between the two, vis. removal of carbon from atmosphere, storage and then oxidation to produce CO2.
Hey Motty you’d be surprised what miracles lie in the realm of tree crops for a future of hyperinflating costs (Read you would obviously be needing to accept we have a problem with fossil fuel supplies to appreciate these risks). I’ve just seen my phosphate costs triple in 10 months and potash double in 2 months – luckily I anticipated these moves and postioned equity accordingly to profit whilst I pain (check out the stocks MAK.AX and RWD.AX – best performers on the ASX for 2008?). But for the average farmer the escalating cost base is going to present a number of major challenges into the future, particularly where crop failure is a realistic risk. Do not knock the guy who takes a punt on something different and new, particularly where input dependency is reduced … I take personal offence to it! Of course we are always keen to hear your take on where agriculture needs to evolve to … being a man of the land these days of course.
Oh and forgive me for my extreme point of view in respect to carbon credits but in all honesty I think for a world constrained of food and carbon feedstocks for fuel, the world really can’t afford to implement such ridiculously stupid schemes. When the recession/depression hits in 2009 (hyperinflation beyond that of 1929), the last thing on peoples minds will be carbon offsets …
And just one more thing Motty … when you get to 64 as is our dear old Mike Jubow, do you think you will be driven by profits or passion? Whether he is right or wrong is far less important than the fact he is having a crack at making the world a better place when he is 64 … RESPECT!
Spot on Aaron. It’s really fascinating that our supposed property rights defender is now telling people what they can and can’t do with their land. Tells you what the real politics are. Mike Jubow isn’t telling everyone to do this. The payback times are well acknowledged. There is no aloe vera or jojoba scam here – a bit of future speculative investment and experimentation by a private individual. Why the angst?
And given the vast amounts of water flowing to ground in the wet tropics are you suggesting a few more trees is going to stop dam inflow.
So now I am supposedly telling people what they can or can’t do with their land? Would you like me to list off all the so called miracle crops that have been flogged to gullible land owners over the past few decades?
Would you like me to list the number of times the nursery industry has kept on flogging product to people long after the potential market was grossly over supplied to the point where the claimed financial returns are rendered completely bogus?
Or will we just sit back and wait for all those DPIF Joint Venture Forestry “partners” to realise what a crock they have been sold. Or maybe follow up some of those “time-share plantation scam” victims when they realise that all the profits have already been creamed off by the promoters?
Your “personal offense” at my comment wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that you are a nurseryman promoting a tree crop, by any chance?
Gee and I thought private enterprise was super efficient and the way to go. Fully researched, stand up in courts of law, prospectuses and so forth. So the hate list grows – we now have all greenies, all urbanites, all govt employees, and now all nurserymen, and any landholders not doing what they’re told.
Ian: Would you like me to list off all the so called miracle crops that have been flogged to gullible land owners over the past few decades?
I’m sure the tree they are talking about does what they say the problem I have it is that it is exotic and we have had several agriculturally driven ecological disasters for instance the cane toad and the prickly pear. Not to mention those other terra-forming projects like importing foxes, bunnies and pigs ( I have been told that would be hunters are releasing the latter into the wild in order to hunt them).
We do have natives that are a good source of oil that should be investigated before importing exotics IMO. It is not going to stop emissions however or slow them down. It will only change the fossil/bio mix.
Sure, Jan, the problem is always with what is left out of a true and fair picture of the situation. Like realistic prices based on supply, like leaving the forestry joint venture partner with a paddock full of stumps that cost the price of the land to remove, and like costing a plantation scheme at 4 times the known market rates for establishment etc.
And as for fuel from biomass, the technology for converting wood fibre to ethanol is well developed. The problem is that the 90 million tonnes of woody regrowth each year (in excess of the natural footprint) has been put off-limits as a source of supply.
So tell us, Luke, do you have any plans to make non-defamatory statements any time soon? So any sort of criticism of anyone amounts to a “hate list”. Bit transparent, don’t you think?
I don’t sell trees Ian. I merely come up with solutions to the problems you don’t know you have in life. 2008 has been a very profitable problem solving year to date … apparently the world is short of the fertilizers needed to feed you.
Other profits will be able to be made by those farmers who come up with low input production systems. Of course you would be well aware I have one of those worked out for the dryland areas of southern Australia. Fertilizer and herbicide shortages are not that far away …
“And as for fuel from biomass, the technology for converting wood fibre to ethanol is well developed. The problem is that the 90 million tonnes of woody regrowth each year (in excess of the natural footprint) has been put off-limits as a source of supply.” Interesting comment but no Ian, the problem has been that people like you who apparently see these amazing opportunities have been unwilling to invest in the concrete and stainless steel necessary to achieve the cellulosic dream. I never push a future I am not willing to push dollars towards.
And Ian believe it or not … some trees are planted for perpetuity. Smart tree growers in this food and energy deficient world are planting food or energy commodity productive trees not timber. I have 100+ year old sandalwoods growing wild on my farm which still produce oil rich nuts.
You are fairly similar to most foresters I meet. Few understand it is most important the utilisation of land be all about food and energy. Timber should always be a secondary consideration. I can see a lot of bluegum plantations being cleared the next decade to make way for grain crops. Wheat at $500/t has the power to change land uses world over …
The levels of general ignorance displayed by most of the comments on this page is astounding – i’m not sure if it’s trolling.
There is no difference between Fossil Fuels and contemporary crops? wait what?
Growing any long term crop shows a lack of economic reasoning? wait what?
These trees are not cut down for their fuel. They are tapped yearly like rubber plants, you get a constant crop from the living tree. A crop that will most likely be completely used ON FARM, is highly onsaleable, and has been in world demand since it’s use was first discovered over 100 years ago in the Internal Combustion Engine.
I suppose you could suggest that in 15 years time we’ll all be using electric cars and will thus have no use for biodiesel – but are you people even suggesting that? I doubt it. From what i can see you’re flat out understanding the simplest highschool/wikipedia level understanding of the terms such as “Fossil Fuel” and “CO2 Neutral”.
If you build furniture and wood is scarce, it would pay to grow your own furniture woods if you have the long term vision for it. But every single farm in the developed world uses diesel fuel – to grown your own (if you can – and it seems you can) is just obvious.
Who would snub their nose at this, oh internet trolls would.