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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (35329)	6/1/2008 6:29:04 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219379

There are so many fronts fighting sugar cane ethanol with a variety of lines of argumentation; Use slave labor. It is subsidized by government Only flies because it is mandated It is causing deforestation It doesn't cut CO2 It is causing food prices to raise The token approach the US did with corn sent cold up spines of many strong entrenched special interests. They are fighting back like crazy. Brazil raises its voice a little to defend ethanol lately. But its stance is: Let the market force ethanol down the tanks of the consumers. Let them suffer then they come to ethanol and forget about all the argumentation. Reading the news about fuel protests in Europe, shows Brazil is right. Let the market teach the world a lesson. Message 24637536

To: Moominoid who wrote (35329)	6/1/2008 7:14:33 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219379

Nuclear alternative. A nuclear power plant planned would be generating when? Not before 2018. That's static fuel. It can only be made into mobile fuel if by 2018 a significant number of electric vehicles are on the market at a affordable prices. and the infrastrcture to re-charge batteries. not only sockets but high voktave transmission and distribution lines, substattion to put switch gear... Hopefully bateries' costly materials will not de-rail it. Renault / Nissan is talking about going this way. I wonder if France has most of its pelectricty generate by nuclear, why is not France in the forefront of electric cars? Ethanol as interim solution has all in place to start. In 10 years of critical mass, and technological advancement, other raw materials will be used for ethanol. Then perhaps some countries start moving into a certain % of electricity-based personal tranportation IF it is competitive vis a vis ethanol. Hard to think fishermen going out at a sea in a eletric power fishing boat. Perhaps it becomes a niche for such transportation means: Distributing mail, and UPS FEDEX DHL Milk men School buses Public transport

To: Moominoid who wrote (35329)	6/1/2008 9:56:50 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219379

From an economists' perspective if you track the last two decades you will discover a trend. Oil prices down after 1986 brought back an era of low cost energy. World economies adapted to oil a that price. Note that the growth industry of the 50's and 60's -the ones that propelled the US economy to the stratosphere- where no longer there: defense and autos. The US economy suffered de-industrialization after USSR fell down and autos were taken over by Japan. Electro electronics and consumer goods were also taken. By Clinton administration days another blow fell on the US economy. Greenism was eating out into what remained there. some currents were saying: The environ-economics is destroying the US. But note that there was already entrenched in the universities a cadre of econo-enviros. Look at anti-ethanol Pimentel. People who instead of focusing on agriculture (Pimentel) and instead on resources (Duane) they focused on environment. Perhaps academia was having a fast track and rewarding more if the guy embraced some fashion du jour (bringing more students to the university) as for example calling his chair ‘environment’ and focusing his work on that. Thus replicating into his students heads environment bias. Recipe for disaster. A generation was lost being taught by those guys. Once society started putting in check environment saying its effects were less economic activities, the economics in academia came out with studies, purporting to say, no it was not. They even said: Clean technologies would replace the growth engines (autos and defense). But it did not. We would need Westinghouses, General Electrics building plants to harvest wave forces, a couple of Silicon Valley’s providing solar energy products. New motors to replace the ones in the lifts of many old buildings and such... New windows and all kind of energy efficient building materials. Noting like that happened. What happened was that no one could build anything in any back yard in the US. In fact the country became engessado. Cast in gypsum like a broken arm to heal. A engessado country has no mobility is paralyzed. What happens when someone needs to do something? He moves to China. And so they did. China must name a city Greenism City and create a prize for all Greenism leader of this planet. Because it was Greenism that sunk the OECD.

To: Moominoid who wrote (35329)	6/2/2008 3:03:28 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219379

Back to the subject: an analysis of Chapman of ethanol. Now that I destroyed the credentials of the perpetrators of the damage to the OECD economies, lets re-focus on ethanol. Would a enviromentalist mind-set be the best to judge such an initiative? Or should him not analysed in a biased manner? Meaning slanted towards the Green label of his tenure? Home-country bias is the bias towards what you know. What you don't know, you can't analyse. Thus the anaylis of Chapman will always be superficial. meanwhile Brazil has progressed in Ethanol while the rest of the world toyed with the Garden of Eden. The implications will reverberate throughout the OECD countries for at least a decade. A fad that passed. But with terrible consequences for the OECD countries.