Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64850)	6/10/2005 4:57:40 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<for the U.S. to attempt a wholesale switch to bio-fuels would require putting more land into fuel production alone than is used today for food production. > Of course Ray. People can only eat about 5 kg of food a day [even Americans] which is about 1,500 kg a year. Just the fuel for the SUV would gobble that much. Then there's the fuel to make the road, the metals in the SUV, to power the house and office airconditioners and other electricity [such as heating]. Already we are needing more land, and we haven't even got into the new fuel-efficient Airbus 380 for a trip to Noo Zealand. But that's a bit wrong because the food from crops is a small portion of the crop. The corn eaten is only about 10% of the plant's mass. I suppose only 10% of the potential calories of the annual growth of most plants are digested in people's stomachs. The rest is cellulose and stuff. So with people buying a Toyota Prius instead of a monster SUV, bringing more land into production, living closer to work etc, it would be doable to run the show on biofuels. But photovoltaics are probably better - no rainfall needed to make them grow. The deserts could be planted with photovoltaics. There's no shortage of energy Ray. The universe is made of energy. E = mc2 so there's an awful lot of it. We just need to squish it up and pop it into the fuel tank. At $60 a barrel oil equivalent, a LOT of sources of energy become economic. Mqurice

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64850)	6/10/2005 5:15:50 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Ray, ironic that you of all people would cite a necocon wingnut like Peter Huber. His philosophy seems much closer to Mq's than yours... Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists A Conservative Manifesto amazon.com The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy amazon.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64850)	6/11/2005 3:11:46 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Extensive areas in Brazil and in the US used for cattle extensive cattle raising (not the confined cattle raising that doesn't use much land) can be switched to agriculture. New GM types can be developed to increase yeld of bio-fuels inputs. Food prices increase, as food crops compete with ag bio fuels forcing Americans to loose weight as an added benefit.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64850)	6/11/2005 4:33:27 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

"most U.S. farmers prefer to pool their money in investment groups to tap the burgeoning Brazilian market. Brazil Iowa Farms, for example, lined up 250 investors from 23 states and Canada for its $13 million farm in Bahia. The University of Georgia and the Georgia Farm Bureau took 15 farmers, including Wood and Folsom, to Brazil and Argentina in January. None of them, so far, has committed to farming in Brazil. But Wood's 27-year-old son, Brad, is considering it. "It's heartbreaking to him, as a young man who loves farming and loves our area of South Georgia, <<ELMAT: I think he's got an eye on the Brazilian girls :-) to know that we'll have to stop cotton farming here if things don't change," Don Wood says. "But I see agriculture as being taken away from us by Brazil." >> ajc.com YOu ae all welcome Americans! Lets take on the world!