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: Elroy Jetson who wrote (81952)	3/27/2007 3:52:20 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206177

While I think corn based ethanol is pretty much wasted effort, Well, I don't mind the farmers making some more money for once, just like I don't mind oil or mining companies making money. Gosh, farmers start to make some money for once, and all these food processing industries, which sell products for 8 times their input costs start yelling like they are bleeding. I'm eating a box of Rice Chex cereal, 15.76 ounces for about $3.10.... what did the rice farmer get, maybe 30 cents a pound ? Anyway, I see 3 major benefits - 1) Creates a capability and some infrastructure for increasing pump octane, which means future car engines can have higher compression - and high compression really boosts the thermodynamic efficientcy. This is a few years in the future, but at least we are starting now. 2) The corn based ethanol creates a small additional motor fuel capacity in the US, which would be very useful if the Persian Gulf were to be shut off for a long time. 3) Ethanol is an existence proof to politicians that something can actually be done in the energy area that has some positive political benefits to them. Note I did not say great net economic benefits.... After ethanol, maybe we can get some action on plug in hybrids, nuclear power, opening up some of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Rocky Mountain areas, and some form of "effiecient dispatch" for NG based electrical generators. ACTION on ethanol, which is to a degree misguided, is better than HAPPY TALK about windmills and solar and other renewable fantasies.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (81952)	3/27/2007 9:31:12 AM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206177

>>>"Which means, rather than putting better technology on their vehicles to become more competitive, they're just trying to foist the problem off on the oil and ethanol industries."<<< Only slightly OT. Continuing in my frugal ways, I am retiring (will post on EBay - hope to get $1K) my wonderful old '85 Mercedes 300SD (diesel) which I have owned for the last 12 years and 130K miles (has 320K total). That car weighs about 4,400 pounds, rides like a cloud, and get 28mpg. It does seem a bit of a decadent indulgence - I figure it will go up to 400K, but a lot of little things are breaking which I would normally fix myself but prefer to spend my time learning more about the economy. So what did I get??? Why a '95 Mercedes E300 (diesel). It weighs about 300 pounds less, rides like a cloud and gets 35 mpg. Consider all of the energy I saved by keeping these old cars. I understand manufacturing a car is very energy intensive (start with the steel making). Think of all the fuel I have saved. I have to say I have zero, zip, nada sympathy for the US auto makers. 28 mpg from my '85 diesel tank. 35 mpg from my '95 diesel tank. For what have the US manufacturers been waiting??? I have about as much sympathy for the "independence from foreign sources crowd." The technology to reduce fuel consumption has been around for ages. I am full of human foibles. I will chuckle every time I pass an E85 pump, knowing that none of my $$$ are going to support ADM or otherwise drive up the price of tortillas and Big Macs. Of course I am getting knicked because the low sulphur standards of diesel fuel have driven up its cost. That is OK. While I doubt global warming, acid rain is for real.