Car Buyers Flee SUVs, Prius Sales Triple

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
> On Sat, 7 May 2005 12:54:47 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
>>> Hmm... What about all that land that the government pays farmers NOT
>>> to plant? Why not make farmers *earn* their subsidies by growing
>>> something on those fields that can be used for fuel?
>>
>>The vast majority of that land is marginal - in western arid states,
>>you're
>>lucky to get 40 or so bushels of wheat from such land (in the Midwest
>>it's 90-100).
>
> Isn't 40 bushels better than 0 bushels? Since we the taxpayers are
> paying for it anyway, shouldn't we at least get SOMETHING for our
> money? Slap some corn on those fields and let's make some E85, or pop
> in some soybeans and let's make some biodiesel!

Corn and soybeans can't be grown on land that gets only about 10" rainfall
a year. In fact, you can only grow wheat on it every other year - has to
lie
fallow for a year to accumulate enough water. And because it has to lie
fallow, it's very exposed to erosion after tilling in the stubble after
harvest.
A lot of effort - and diesel and fertilizer and pesticide/fungicide - for
little
return. Taking it all into account, it's cheaper just to leave it as
habitat
for critters - at least if you're not a PETA freak and like rabbit and
venison.

Floyd

In article >, max wrote:
>In article >,
> Mike Wilcox > wrote:
>
>> Okay smart ass, even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow, grease
>> production AND the total vegetible oil production is still would only
>> provide 15% of the fuel needed just for transportation. Throw in what we
>> need for industrial and home heating and you can see it's totally
>> impossible to replace crude oil
>>
>> http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html
>
>I agree. I've enveloped this kind of thing more than a couple of times,
>with real numbers from .gov sources -- biodiesel (and corn squeezin's)
>are a scam with current useage patterns.
>
>The enthusiastic promotion of biofuels in the face of their self-evident
>insufficiency as viable energy sources scares me.

15% of the amount used for transportation sounds to me like about 7% of
the petroleum market - I thought transportation used about half of all
petroleum.

Just think what would happen to crude oil prices if OPEC increased their
production by 7% of the world's current production!

- Don Klipstein )

Rod Speed wrote:
> "Lorenzo L. Love" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>max wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Mike Wilcox > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Okay smart ass, even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow, grease
>>>>production AND the total vegetible oil production is still would only provide
>>>>15% of the fuel needed just for transportation. Throw in what we need for
>>>>industrial and home heating and you can see it's totally impossible to
>>>>replace crude oil
>>>>
>>>>http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree. I've enveloped this kind of thing more than a couple of times, with
>>>real numbers from .gov sources -- biodiesel (and corn squeezin's) are a scam
>>>with current useage patterns. The enthusiastic promotion of biofuels in the
>>>face of their self-evident insufficiency as viable energy sources scares me.
>>>
>>>I'm reminded of homer simpson cooking $27 of bacon to render its fat, which
>>>brought him $0.63 at the recycler. Biofuels is a lot like that, and a
>>>careful study of Homer Simpson can yield valuable clues about American
>>>policy.
>>>
>>>.max
>>
>>Just a coincidence it's called pork barrel politics when mega-corporations
>>like ADM get massive government subsidies for bio-fuels even though it takes
>>more than one gallon of gasoline to make one gallon of ethanol.
>
>
> Another flagrant lie.
>
>
More of a straw man since we're talking about biodiesel - not ethanol.

brigid

Rod Speed wrote:
> Lorenzo L. Love > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>fbloogyudsr wrote
>>
>>>Scott en Aztlán > wrote
>
>
>>>>Hmm... What about all that land that the government pays farmers NOT to
>>>>plant? Why not make farmers *earn* their subsidies by growing something on
>>>>those fields that can be used for fuel?
>
>
>>>The vast majority of that land is marginal - in western arid states, you're
>>>lucky to get 40 or so bushels of wheat from such land (in the Midwest
>>>it's 90-100). A lot of the rest in the Plains states (KA, OK, n. TX, NE)
>>>is irrigated from the Ogallala aquifer, which has only 20-30 years (the
>>>arguments are exactly like the oil remaining!) left.
>
>
>>>So, you wanna rape the oil fields, or rape the land?
>
>
>>That's exactly the situation.
>
>
> Nope, nothing like it in fact.
>
>
>>Before someone suggests saving water by dryland farming (which only produces
>>about one quarter the crop of irrigated farming)
>
>
> More pig ignorant drivel.
>
>
>>that would do nothing to mitigate the problem of soil erosion.
>
>
> More pig ignorant drivel.
>
>
>>The U.S. has some of the lowest erosion rates in the world but it's still 1700
>>tons of topsoil per square kilometer per year.
>
>
> Big deal. That happens even without agriculture, stupid.
>
>
>>Far worse in many other parts of the world.
>
>
> Big deal. That happens even without agriculture too, stupid.
>
>
>>Total global topsoil loss estimates run from 20.5 billion tons a year to 88
>>billion tons a year.
>
>
> And thats been happening for millions of years now, fool.
>
>
>>It's been estimated
>
>
> By pig ignorant fools.
>
>
>>that one third of the world's arable land has been already been lost by
>>erosion in just the last 4 decades.
>
>
> Complete pack of lies.
>
>
>>Putting more land under the plow is just like pumping more oil.
>
>
> Nope, nothing like. And it aint more land anyway.
>
>
>>We are going to run out just that much faster.
>
>
> OK, time for fools like you to kill yourselves and fix the problem.
>
>


With each new post your ignorance of the basic facts becomes more
apparrent. There is simply no way any biomass based fuel can replace
even what's needed for transportation, even agencies that promote
biofuels fully admit that. Should we consider all options regarding
alternative fuels? Yes of course we should, can biodiesel or biofuels
replace petroleum, even for transportation. No, not by a long shot

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Sat, 7 May 2005 12:54:47 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
>>
>>>Hmm... What about all that land that the government pays farmers NOT
>>>to plant? Why not make farmers *earn* their subsidies by growing
>>>something on those fields that can be used for fuel?
>>
>>The vast majority of that land is marginal - in western arid states, you're
>>lucky to get 40 or so bushels of wheat from such land (in the Midwest
>>it's 90-100).
>
>
> Isn't 40 bushels better than 0 bushels? Since we the taxpayers are
> paying for it anyway, shouldn't we at least get SOMETHING for our
> money? Slap some corn on those fields and let's make some E85, or pop
> in some soybeans and let's make some biodiesel!
>

Corn has a terrible rate of conversion to alcohol, it take almost as
much energy to produce as you get out of it as fuel. Soybeans are much
better, but as has been pointed out there is simply not enough total
land mass to replace even a small percentage of our current consumption.

For example, for just my own personal driving @ 20 gallons a week I
would need 20 gallons x 52 weeks = 1040 gallons a year. This means at a
oil production rate of 55 gallons per acre it would take 18.9 acres
to produce enough fuel for just one car. But this simple math doesn't
take into account the cost of production of this amount of oil, such as
labor, seeds, cultivation equipment, and fuel for the tractor etc..
So in reality more than 18.9 acres would be needed to fuel each car
after paying costs of production

Currently there are 83 people per sq. mile in the USA, and there is
640 acres in a sq. mile, which means roughly 8 people per sq. acre.
If you looked 8 people being two families of four you can see there is
no way any bio fuel is going to replace oil when you need at least 18.9
acres to fuel one car.

Don Klipstein wrote:

> In article >, max wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Mike Wilcox > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Okay smart ass, even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow, grease
>>>production AND the total vegetible oil production is still would only
>>>provide 15% of the fuel needed just for transportation. Throw in what we
>>>need for industrial and home heating and you can see it's totally
>>>impossible to replace crude oil
>>>
>>>http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html
>>
>>I agree. I've enveloped this kind of thing more than a couple of times,
>>with real numbers from .gov sources -- biodiesel (and corn squeezin's)
>>are a scam with current useage patterns.
>>
>>The enthusiastic promotion of biofuels in the face of their self-evident
>>insufficiency as viable energy sources scares me.
>
>
> 15% of the amount used for transportation sounds to me like about 7% of
> the petroleum market - I thought transportation used about half of all
> petroleum.
>
> Just think what would happen to crude oil prices if OPEC increased their
> production by 7% of the world's current production!
>
> - Don Klipstein )

Many in the business think that Opec is already running at close to
capacity and reserves are declining ( more sulfur bearing oil is now
being pumped).

On Sun, 8 May 2005 08:07:01 -0700, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>
>fallow for a year to accumulate enough water. And because it has to lie
>fallow, it's very exposed to erosion after tilling in the stubble after
>harvest.


So don't till in the stubble.

> wrote
"fbloogyudsr"> > wrote:
>>
>>fallow for a year to accumulate enough water. And because it has to lie
>>fallow, it's very exposed to erosion after tilling in the stubble after
>>harvest.
>
> So don't till in the stubble.

Unfortunately, that usually results in more weeds and more fungus/rot
that substantially reduces the next crop, as well as not recovering
the nutrients in the stubble. It's not clear how "no till" you want to go
with:
certainly the less you till the better, but completely no till may not be
doable. Interestingly, there's quite a bit of research going on in
perennial strains of wheat (and other grains) that would obviate
tilling completely.

Floyd

SoCalMike wrote:
> L Sternn wrote:
> >>Your experience is likely outdated. Renault of the 2000s is much
> >>different from that of the 1980s.
> >
> >
> >
> > Duh - they gave up on trying to sell cars here.
> >
> > 'cuz they suck
>
> so they bought a company that doesnt suck (or doesnt suck as
bad...)-nissan!
>
> i see a LOT of altimas around. not many maximas or 350's tho. must be

> doing something right.

These Republican trolls and spinsters here and everywhere are so full
of sh*t; they think everything can be used to further their dogamtic
agenda.

"The biggest single cause of the companies' financial problems, S&P
said in its report, is the mighty sport-utility vehicle. Both Ford and
GM make much of their profits on SUVs and relied on the nation's
appetite for them to hold off overseas competition during the 1990s.
But high gasoline prices and consumer whims are turning the market
against large SUVs, and GM and Ford have been caught flat-footed, with
"severe ramifications," S&P said in its report."



"March 27,1999: Renault and Nissan announce their strategic Alliance.
Renault takes a 36.8% stake in Nissan (consisting of shares and
securities with voting rights) for a total of JPY 643 billion (EUR 5
billion/USD 5.4 billion). The Alliance is intended to create a balanced
partnership which will boost performance.
June 1999: Structures are created to develop and set up common projects
promoting the profitable growth of both Alliance partners. The
structures cover all the activities of the two companies.
October 30, 2001: Renault and Nissan announce their decision to further
strengthen the Alliance, in accordance with the terms of the original
agreement, so that the two partners can implement common projects more
quickly. Renault-Nissan B.V. is founded on March 28, 2002.
March 1st, 2002: Renault increases its stake in Nissan from 36.8% to
44.4% (shares and securities with voting rights), representing an
investment of JPY 215.9 billion/EUR 1.35 billion.
March 28, 2002: Nissan acquires a 13.5% stake in Renault, for EUR 50.39
per share, through a reserved capital increase.
May 28, 2002: Nissan acquires a further 1.5% stake for EUR 52.91 per
share, raising its stake to 15% as previously agreed.
May 29, 2002: The Alliance Board meets for the first time."

"Mike Wilcox" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Lorenzo L. Love > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>
>>>fbloogyudsr wrote
>>>
>>>>Scott en Aztlán > wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>Hmm... What about all that land that the government pays farmers NOT to
>>>>>plant? Why not make farmers *earn* their subsidies by growing something on
>>>>>those fields that can be used for fuel?
>>
>>
>>>>The vast majority of that land is marginal - in western arid states, you're
>>>>lucky to get 40 or so bushels of wheat from such land (in the Midwest
>>>>it's 90-100). A lot of the rest in the Plains states (KA, OK, n. TX, NE)
>>>>is irrigated from the Ogallala aquifer, which has only 20-30 years (the
>>>>arguments are exactly like the oil remaining!) left.
>>
>>
>>>>So, you wanna rape the oil fields, or rape the land?
>>
>>
>>>That's exactly the situation.
>>
>>
>> Nope, nothing like it in fact.
>>
>>
>>>Before someone suggests saving water by dryland farming (which only produces
>>>about one quarter the crop of irrigated farming)
>>
>>
>> More pig ignorant drivel.
>>
>>
>>>that would do nothing to mitigate the problem of soil erosion.
>>
>>
>> More pig ignorant drivel.
>>
>>
>>>The U.S. has some of the lowest erosion rates in the world but it's still
>>>1700 tons of topsoil per square kilometer per year.
>>
>>
>> Big deal. That happens even without agriculture, stupid.
>>
>>
>>>Far worse in many other parts of the world.
>>
>>
>> Big deal. That happens even without agriculture too, stupid.
>>
>>
>>>Total global topsoil loss estimates run from 20.5 billion tons a year to 88
>>>billion tons a year.
>>
>>
>> And thats been happening for millions of years now, fool.
>>
>>
>>>It's been estimated
>>
>>
>> By pig ignorant fools.
>>
>>
>>>that one third of the world's arable land has been already been lost by
>>>erosion in just the last 4 decades.
>>
>>
>> Complete pack of lies.
>>
>>
>>>Putting more land under the plow is just like pumping more oil.
>>
>>
>> Nope, nothing like. And it aint more land anyway.
>>
>>
>>>We are going to run out just that much faster.
>>
>>
>> OK, time for fools like you to kill yourselves and fix the problem.

> With each new post your ignorance of the basic facts becomes more apparrent.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

> There is simply no way any biomass based fuel can replace even what's needed
> for transportation,

Never said there was. Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?

> even agencies that promote biofuels fully admit that. Should we consider all
> options regarding alternative fuels? Yes of course we should, can biodiesel or
> biofuels replace petroleum, even for transportation. No, not by a long shot

Never said it can. Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?