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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (67941)	7/24/2006 11:35:01 AM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206092

Ethanol - Tommaso - thanks for posting that. From the article: 2. In a year, all vegetation in the USA delivers less biomass energy than the fossil and nuclear energy we consume. Most of the annual biomass production is committed to food, feed, lumber, paper pulp, fiber, etc., and is heavily subsidized with fossil fuels. Most of the remaining land is covered with sparse and remote vegetation, but some of it could be used for biofuel production. Compared with current energy use in the U.S., the impact of biomass is almost negligible, regardless of its source. 3. Ms. Theresa Schmalshof of NCGA, who testified on May 19, 2005, before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, correctly stated that U.S. corn growers and ethanol producers heavily rely on fossil fuel subsidies: on natural gas, crude oil, and coal. The first two fossil fuels are in very short supply, the last is abundant. Ms. Schmalshof concluded that more fossil energy from all sources must be produced now to save American corn growers and ethanol producers in the near future. See resourcescommittee.house.gov Somewhere on my hard disk, I have a graphic of the US. It shows how much of the country would have to be covered with a 100% efficient solar conversion device to supply the country at today's usage. It covered about 1/3 of the country. I don't think that plants are 100% efficient at converting incident solar into chemical, but if they were, there are surely a lot of losses converting the biomass to a transportation fuel. My father-in-law spent the weekend with us from out west. He is a PhD Princeton petroleum geologist. He shakes his head at the mention of ethanol. He is a temperate person, but he feels sure that the members of congress voting in favor of ethanol know that it is a net energy loser. Quite scary when you think about it - sacrificing what little petroleum supplies we have left for a quick sop to your corn growing constituents. Edit - had to add this from the recommendations portion of the report: 2. It also seems prudent to invest in efficient manufacturing technologies for photovoltaic cells. A mediocre photovoltaic cell is about 100 times more efficient in delivering work than corn ethanol. 3. We ought to take a deep breath and freeze corn ethanol production at or below the 2004 level for several years, while evaluating the long-term consequences of gasohol use. Some day the ethanol producers will be great shorts. It is a little disturbing that Bill Gates is a big investor, but then again he is a college drop-out. Software excellence doesn't imply universal competence.