Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: default <default@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:40:29 -0500
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:13:02 -0800, John Smith
<assemblywizard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
default wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:15:38 -0500, krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Food is incredibly cheap in the US.
That is changing rapidly right now. Double whammy lots of corporate
aid to Archer Daniel Midlands to make ethanol will take corn from the
feeds to animals and it is in 90% of packaged food now.
The double whammy comes in when it costs more to mine fertilizer,
transport feeds and chemicals, then transport the product to market
and keep it fresh with refrigeration.
Cheap food is something we will be looking back on in 6 months or
less.
In the 70's I briefly worked for the ag chem division of occidental
petroleum corp. Urea came from one of the handful of ammonia reactors
in Russia. Phosphates, sulfer and other import fertilizers came on
large ships into the port of stockton from various other countries.
Now with the BAD trend to run food through our gas tanks--someone is
going to get mighty hungry! I am afraid there IS doom and gloom down
that road ...
Hydrogen cars make me laugh also, there are NO hydrogen wells! And, the
cost of burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to make hydrogen
is a lossy practice. Claims of efficient hydrogen fuel cells "just
around the corner" abound--but then so do rumors of perpetual motion and
zero point energy.
I am afraid it is difficult to draw pretty pictures and fool me ... if
only ponds and fletcher had come through ...
Regards,
JS
I was rolling around laughing to the Pretzel's "Hydrogen Future"
speech. I wonder if he actually believed that stuff and who the hell
is his science advisor? "Most plentiful fuel in the universe"
Today it is ethanol. Now if they could actually turn cellulose into
alcohol that might change things. So far, except for saying it had
been done in a laboratory, there's no such thing as a cellulose
fermenter and no economically viable process out there.
Why take a food crop if your intent is to produce fuel? The logical
way would be to determine what crop would yield the most alcohol for
the least expenditure of resources, that will grow on the land
available. Is corn that crop?
If cellulose could be made to work, why all the hype about using the
corn stalks? Why not just use waste wood, leaves, bark, paper, and
cotton?
I'm guessing that it would serve us better in the short and long term
to increase efficiency in the way we use fuel, instead of trying to
sustain our wasteful habits.
I guess it all boils down to what lobbyists find attractive.
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: John Smith
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- References:
- OT: Inflation in the US
- From: TheM
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: Eeyore
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: TheM
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: Joerg
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: krw
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: default
- Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- From: John Smith
- OT: Inflation in the US
- Prev by Date: Re: Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Inflation in the US
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|