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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (61739)	5/23/2006 11:52:20 AM
From: tdl4138	Respond to of 110194

In theory, it can probably work. The first problem is getting everyone off the "corn" kick. Other crops are better suited, those with high sugar content. Years ago we grew a sorghum that looked like a smaller crop of sugar cane. The stuff grew unbelievably fast and the cattle loved it due to the high sugar content. More importantly, it required very little fertilizer. It also was "cut and baled" like hay which made it easy to handle without combines, etc. Unlike corn, where only the grain is used, this sorghum would be utilized in its entirety. We also took 3 cuttings in one growing season and didn't leave a field full of stubble. The yield per acre was literally unbelievable. Just like in Brazil, the byproduct would be the left over fiber that is dried and then used as fuel to run the whole process. The byproduct from corn isn't suitable to dry and burn and doesn't contain enough bulk fiber. Unfortunately, the current mind set is strictly corn. After all...its already there. Try talking to a farmer thats grown corn in his fields for the last 20-30 years and tell him to start growing something else. If people will take the time to fine tune and refine the ethanol process, it could work just as well here as in Brazil. All we need is some up to date third world engineering....

To: yard_man who wrote (61739)	5/23/2006 1:00:50 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Akafoobar, then you have been sold a bill of goods by the oil companies, much like the "research" for smoking that showed no link to cancer for many, many years. I was sucked in for several years as well, as the 1 study to which you refer (takes 1.2 bbl of oil to produce the equivalent of 1 bbl of BTUs from ethanol -- does that sound familiar?) had many flaws of omission. The point I failed to consider (i.e. the "paradox" of that claim) is the benefit of photosynthesis -- all that solar energy being used by the plant. That's where much of the benefit comes from. Plus longer lasting engines and tractors (takes oil & water to make them). Carbon being consumed by the regeneration of ethanol (as opposed to the one-way creation of carbon as is done now). Higher efficiency of E100 or E85 autos (currently about 15% I think). Plus less fertilizer for many of the crops (or byproducts as fertilizer), another oil savings. And potentially vast savings on chemicals (e.g. Roundup).