Mercedes-Benz Fined $1.2 Million for Clean Air Act Violation
NY Upgrades CNG Fueling Site to Largest on East Coast

Canada Sets Biofuels Targets

Canada’s government has announced its targets for renewable fuel content in gasoline and diesel. The government also announced C$345 million (US$299 million) in assistance to farmers and rural communities to help them develop biofuels and other bioproducts.

Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, announced that the Government will require an annual average renewable content of 5% in gasoline by 2010 and a 2% requirement for renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012.

The requirement for 5% of gasoline will amount to a requirement for about 2.1 billion liters (555 million gallons US) of renewable fuel per year in 2010; 2% of diesel fuel and heating oil will require almost another 600 million liters (159 million gallons US) in 2012.

The regulations are expected to be complex and take at least two years to develop, according to the government. Design and implementation of a regulation will require consultation with provinces, territories, affected sectors and other stakeholders. A Notice of Intent will be issued in early 2007, with discussions, consultations and studies undertaken throughout 2007.

The C$345 million will fund two programs: The Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program and the Capital Formation Assistance Program for Renewable Fuels Production.

Of the C$345 million:

  • $200 million through the Capital Formation Assistance Program for Renewable Fuels Production will provide producers with incentives for participation in new renewable fuels production capacity; and

  • $145 million through the Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program will provide support for cross-sector research networks conducting scientific research and development related to the advancement of a Canadian bio-based economy. The ABIP program is focused on:

    • Feedstock production through the development of crop platforms and cropping systems suitable for conversion to bioproducts;
    • Developing effective and efficient technologies for biomass conversion; and
    • Product diversification through technologies relevant to production of bioproducts (e.g. industrial chemicals, biomaterials and health products).




First time on my memory Canada is contributing more than lunch beer money to something different from local community consulting, global issue analysis, sustainable development planning, environmental impact assessment, public involvement program, native participation initiative, voluntary emission abatement, social impact monitoring, international initiative participation, environmental planning activity, and alike.


By next year Ontario will alreay have between 7.5 to 10% ethanol and biodiesel blended into fuels.



With both corn and wheat for ethanol and canola for biodiesel exclusively grown in Prairie Provinces.

Hurr-a-a, green Ontario!


Same with Saskatchewan

Harvey D.

2% and 5% blends is not much of an effort but one cannot alienate tar sands area voters before an election.

Restricted ethanol and biodiesel production from foodstocks may be acceptable (with current surpluses) but is not sustainable in the long term, unless we replace our gas guzzlers with PHEVs and Chinese EVs.

Construction of (+/- half a dozen) nuclear power plants in Alberta, mainly for power hungry tar sands activities + to replace scarce natural gaz and dirty coal fired power plants, may be announced shortly. It maybe the only way (with In Situ method) to multiply Oil production without multipying (and even reducing) GHGs from Alberta.

Jack  Robbins



The ironic thing is that for 2007 most of the bio-ethanol and bio-diesel will be imported from the US into Canada. Apparently local production will not ramp up fast enough to support demand until 2008


This is simply to state that there are options available....if we look for them. For example: I know people, myself included, are having a lot of success with a certain (proven) 100% petroleum-based gas additive:

* Mileage extended;
* Emissions cut~75%;
* Use with diesel, gasoline, ethanol;
* EPA registered;
* Boosts Octane. (Important as ethanol and methyl hydrate cut power ~15%.

Bottom line: Why aren't we all using such a product. We help our pocket-book by cutting our gas costs while helping the ecology?? And - get a cleaner, more efficient running engine as a bonus!

Consider: With a 10% saving - it is the equivalent of you getting a free tank of gas every 10th fill-up.

Keep Smiling!

Rodney James

This is all wonderful, but why isn't anyone talking about the huge number of acres that will be taken out of human food production and that of our livestock feeding industry. I would sure like to see some figures as to how many acres it will take to meet the 2010 and 2012 goals.


That wont be a problem for Canada, we have a big country and not a lot of people. If we focus on using cellulosic biomass (city waste, forestry waste, etc.) we wont have to touch our food producing land.

America could cover its biofuel needs by capturing CO2 emissions from its power plants with algae bioreactors.


America could create 100B gallons of biofuel by gasification and F/T. But we would rather spend $100B a year on war than invest $10B a year on synthetic fuels then tell OPEC to keep their oil...forever.


Rodney: We actually pay our farmers NOT to produce some food. We have so much land and so many farmers that prices would plummet and small farmers would go out of business if we actually used our full current capacity.

The West (North America and W. Europe) spends about $300 billion a year on agriculture-related subsidies. If we can start using a good deal of our idle resources to actually produce fuel, we can increase wealth and power of our farmers, thereby reducing their reliance on our governments for subsidies and increasing federal coffers (to hopefully reinvest in alternative fuels).

Food supply is arguably the single most important aspect of any nation's well-being (it accounts for on of the three basic human needs). However, knowing how to manage food supply capacity more efficiently can yield higher national returns in the longrun and actually help increase the standard of living, both here and abroad.


Many farmers may see cellulose ethanol as another cash crop and maybe some subsidies can be reduced. They would not use any more acreage than they do now for food, but use the plant stalks that they now plow under or burn. No extra water or fertilizer would de needed either. I would imagine that enough American farmers would like to be part of that solution.


For your information,
biagra [url=]biagra[/url]

The comments to this entry are closed.