Couple of new articles: even more impact on barley prices could becoming

B

Bill Davidsen

Guest
Re: Couple of new articles: even more impact on barley prices couldbe coming

F. George McDuffee wrote:

> Eighth: extensive energy and precursor feed stock production by
> fermentation of renewable resources can reverse the depopulation
> of the countryside with the concurrent [cancerous] growth of the
> large metro areas with excessive operating costs/cost-of living
> and [highly] toxic life styles/environments [e.g. drug culture].
> Much of small-town and rural America still has very affordable
> housing and under-utilized infrastructure such as schools, as
> well as a much healthier social environment and higher "quality
> of life" factors.
>

A quick look in wikipedia at the entry for butanol and the section on
"production" and the link there is informative. Butanol can be used in
any car, doesn't need "flex fuel" tech, and be mixed with gasoline in
pipelines, and can use the standard infrastructure in place.

Production can be from corn stalks and other plant biomass which
currently do not generate revenue. The factors of choice are economic
and political, not necessarily technical.

It would be nice if energy policy was not related to the cost of
brewing, but it really is.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Unsigned numbers may not be negative. However, unsigned numbers may be
less than zero for sufficiently large values of zero.
 
B

Bill Davidsen

Guest
Re: Couple of new articles: even more impact on barley prices couldbe coming

Scott Sellers wrote:
> F George McDuffee <gmcduffee@mcduffee-associates.us>:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:23:34 GMT, "Brian Bartz"
>> <nasacpa@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>>> Corn ethanol is bad news. When you figure out the amount of
>>> energy that goes into getting the ethanol, the deal doesn't
>>> make much sense.

>> =============== Indeed, from a strictly "up front" or current
>> effeciency/economic standpoint it does not, however not
>> everything is [or should be] evaluated on the factors of current
>> "efficiency" and "economics."

>
>> First: from a national defense perspective, ethanol production
>> is domestic under US control, and establishes a secure fuel
>> supply.

>
> If a limited, temporary fuel supply can be considered "secure".
> Ethanol cannot begin to meet current oil consumption standards,
> and is not a renewable resource under current industrial farming
> practices, where the destructive costs to the very soil are
> externalized for short-term profit.
>

See "methane ice" for ideas on a solution, which should be discussed
elsewhere.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Unsigned numbers may not be negative. However, unsigned numbers may be
less than zero for sufficiently large values of zero.
 
Top