JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...


...
...In a field of one type of grain, there's
no reason for the plants to compete with each other by being taller.

I don't think they know anything about that...

If you didn't know that plants compete for sunlight, water and nutrients,
you shouldn't have been having this discussion.

You are completely off the wall, aren't you...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...


...
...In a field of one type of grain, there's
no reason for the plants to compete with each other by being taller.

I don't think they know anything about that...

If you didn't know that plants compete for sunlight, water and nutrients,
you shouldn't have been having this discussion.

You are completely off the wall, aren't you...

Basic agronomics, look it up before you make a complete fool of yourself.

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...


...
...In a field of one type of grain, there's
no reason for the plants to compete with each other by being taller.

I don't think they know anything about that...

If you didn't know that plants compete for sunlight, water and nutrients,
you shouldn't have been having this discussion.

You are completely off the wall, aren't you...

Basic agronomics, look it up before you make a complete fool of yourself.

You took a joke and made it the only thing of a total post you replied
to.

...In a field of one type of grain, there's
no reason for the plants to compete with each other by being taller.

I don't think they know anything about that...

If you didn't know that plants compete for sunlight, water and nutrients,
you shouldn't have been having this discussion.

You are completely off the wall, aren't you...

Basic agronomics, look it up before you make a complete fool of yourself.


In my country, "they" means something different than does "I".
What was your native language again?

--Goedjn

Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?

Goedjn wrote:
Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?

1 Gallon of Gasoline = 125,000 Btu
1 Gallon of Ethanol = 80,000 Btu

Find wholesaler pretax prices of each and do the math.


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

...In a field of one type of grain, there's
no reason for the plants to compete with each other by being taller.

I don't think they know anything about that...

If you didn't know that plants compete for sunlight, water and
nutrients,
you shouldn't have been having this discussion.

You are completely off the wall, aren't you...

Basic agronomics, look it up before you make a complete fool of yourself.


In my country, "they" means something different than does "I".
What was your native language again?

--Goedjn

This conversation is being conducted in English. All forms of English to
which I am aware, do not contain any other word to describe a group of
animate and/or inanimate objects with a pronoun other than "they."

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?

Not in real terms, that is "without subsidies."

JoeSixPack wrote:
"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?


Not in real terms, that is "without subsidies."


Ignoring petroleum subsidies again, eh?

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

JoeSixPack wrote:

....
.... many radical scientific breakthroughs have come as
a result of dogged determination against a torrent of peer ridicule for many
years. ...

True, but I'm betting this one won't be one of them...we can "hide and
watch" so to speak.

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?

Actually, at today's pump prices, both if one looks at
production/wholesale costs. There's a penalty against ethanol at the
retail market just now in that there's yet a small enough distribution
channel that it gets priced more nearly at the equivalent gasoline level
than is required.

Not in real terms, that is "without subsidies."

Yes, in real terms, that being the actual economic system in which we
operate.

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:
"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?


Not in real terms, that is "without subsidies."
Ignoring petroleum subsidies again, eh?


Petroleum prices are not subsidized, they are taxed. Exactly the opposite.

Subsidies make the prices LOWER.

Taxes make the price HIGHER.

In article , Steve Spence wrote:
JoeSixPack wrote:
"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?

Not in real terms, that is "without subsidies."

Ignoring petroleum subsidies again, eh?

What the hell are you talking about? Where is the price of petroleum
subsidized?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

JoeSixPack wrote:
"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?


Not in real terms, that is "without subsidies."

Ignoring petroleum subsidies again, eh?



Petroleum prices are not subsidized, they are taxed. Exactly the opposite.

Subsidies make the prices LOWER.

Taxes make the price HIGHER.


oh, so having our military in the middle east to keep supplies open is
"free" then? How about the money spent combatting asthma, cancer, and
poolution. That's all free as well? We pay those bills, and that's a
subsidy.

You must have ignored this last time I gave it to you:
http://www.green-trust.org/securesup...curesupply.htm


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

Solar Flare wrote:



That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our
industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.

Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
are burning.

"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
carbon-based fuels altogether.



I think you misjudge the ability of life to deal with our excess.

Have you noticed that crop yields have also increased with the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere.

It could be that it is simply the action of fertilizer and selective
breeding alone, but I've noticed that when I dose aquatic plants with
excess CO2 they proliferate rapidly.

One might even suggest that to continue our parisitic relationship with
the world, humans may require an increasing atmospheric CO2 quantity
just to meet our food needs... that is if our increasing population
trend continues (and it shows no great signs of slowing down).

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Steve Spence wrote:

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

Per mile, or per gallon?

Not in real terms, that is "without subsidies."


Ignoring petroleum subsidies again, eh?


What the hell are you talking about? Where is the price of petroleum
subsidized?


http://www.green-trust.org/securesup...curesupply.htm

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

oh, so having our military in the middle east to keep supplies open is
"free" then? How about the money spent combatting asthma, cancer, and
poolution. That's all free as well? We pay those bills, and that's a
subsidy.



I observe that your favorite rhetorical technique is
"Begging the Question".

Duane Bozarth wrote:

That seems almost incomprehensible that there aren't Ag Departments in
at least some of the major Universities, regardless of where they are
physically situated. Where are the Vet schools, the Animal Husbandry
programs, the Ag Engineers, Milling and Grain experts trained?

Well, Vet science was done at second tier places for a long time,
University of Queensland had vet science and a cat and dog hospital. Ag
engineering was pretty much all imported from the UK, milling and grain
was certificate level stuff run out of the TAFE/Ag College layer.

I seem to recall that most Vets had a certificate (like a trade
qualification) until well within my lifetime.

Universities have acquired big Ag Science areas at remote campuses in
the last 10 years or so of forced amalgamations.

There are of course, commercially developed varieties but most US-grown
varieties are developed by the various University and Grower-sponsored
research organizations. Example facilities in Kansas at Kansas State
University include

http://www.k-state.edu/wgrc/
http://www.k-state.edu/igp/
http://www.k-state.edu/igrow/

DPI handled stuff "in house" until it was gutted about 10 years ago.

Dad did a sponsored Farm Tour to Au and NZ a number of years ago under
aegis of US Dept of Ag but other than his tales of visiting and staying
w/ various producers around and meetings w/ Wheat Board (or whatever it
was called specifically) and other gov't officialdom I don't recall what
they saw for the research end.

The Wheat Board was a "single desk" export co-op. The US-Australia FTA
has pretty much gutted it.

Here we go, a traditional variety, 2m (6ft) and a modern hybrid 60cm (2ft).

That's going far farther back than what I would consider
"traditional"...

There's not been much of that type grown in really large quantities for
at least a 100 years, at least in the US. I was coming from the frame
of reference of when wheat was introduced as a widespread grain crop in
the US midwest in the mid-1800s which was primarily w/ the introduction
here of hard red winter wheat, specifically Turkey Red.

Ah, we've been growing things like Durum wheat here. Queenlands
wheatbelt is in warm temperate and subtropical climates.

The Duram wheats are grown farther north and west in the US from where
we are located here.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...ish_746022.htm

Pictures of horsedrawn harvesters here show wheat tended to be about 1m
tall, definitely over waist height, as opposed to barely knee high for
the current varieties I see in paddocks by the hyway.

I wouldn't like wheat quite that short for the reasons stated
before--would force one to run the combine header nearly on the ground
which makes for picking up lots of dirt and wear on the lower carriage
in order to not miss the shorter than average heads.

Our combines have been evolving pretty fast.

I still think regarding your point regarding the total biomass per acre
that the modern planting density compared to such hand sown fields of
the reference time frame when such super-tall varieties were predominant
will counteract a large amount of the difference in total plant volume.

The modern varieties put biomass into leaf formation and grain, little
stalk, suspect they are two to three times the mass per plant of the
earlier varities. Then there are forage crops, which are almost all leaf.

....Brock.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

JoeSixPack wrote:

Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

So explain Carbonaceous Chondrites.


Coming right up...

" A rare type of stony meteorite which contains large amounts of the
magnesium-rich minerals olivine and serpentine and a variety of organic
compounds, including amino acids. Although fewer than 100 carbonaceous
chondrites are known..."

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbchon.html

Do you *really* think that's where Earth's petroleum came from? Rare
meteorites, of which fewer than a hundred are known? Get real.

What percentage of the rocks that hit in the Age of Planetesimals were
Carbonaceous Chondrites? What is the percentage mass of such rocks that
is organics? What is the mass of the Earth?

The numbers do add up, if you care to look.

....Brock.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

...

Much of the arable land is used for grass, or grain to feed cattle,
where the carbon is released into that atmosphere as either exhaled CO2
or farted methane. If we used that same land to grow hemp to make paper
and stored the paper in nice dry buildings (made of fibrepanels produced
from hemp) for centuries, that carbon would be sequested, and hemp
produces more biomass per acre tham grass.

And less food and other necessary products...

All I suggested was we use the land currently used to feed cattle.

Burgers become more expensive, more people eat less meat.

....Brock.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

JoeSixPack wrote:

Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

So explain Carbonaceous Chondrites.



Whatever their explanation, they're not the source of production oil
reserves.

You have proof of this?

....Brock.

In article , Brock Ulfsen wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Brock Ulfsen
wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

JoeSixPack wrote:

Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

So explain Carbonaceous Chondrites.


Coming right up...

" A rare type of stony meteorite which contains large amounts of the
magnesium-rich minerals olivine and serpentine and a variety of organic
compounds, including amino acids. Although fewer than 100 carbonaceous
chondrites are known..."

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbchon.html

Do you *really* think that's where Earth's petroleum came from? Rare
meteorites, of which fewer than a hundred are known? Get real.

What percentage of the rocks that hit in the Age of Planetesimals were
Carbonaceous Chondrites? What is the percentage mass of such rocks that
is organics? What is the mass of the Earth?

The numbers do add up, if you care to look.

Nonsense -- they don't even come *close* to adding up. What part of "rare ..
fewer than 100 known" do you have a hard time understanding?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

That seems almost incomprehensible that there aren't Ag Departments in
at least some of the major Universities, regardless of where they are
physically situated. Where are the Vet schools, the Animal Husbandry
programs, the Ag Engineers, Milling and Grain experts trained?

Well, Vet science was done at second tier places for a long time,
University of Queensland had vet science and a cat and dog hospital. Ag
engineering was pretty much all imported from the UK, milling and grain
was certificate level stuff run out of the TAFE/Ag College layer.

I seem to recall that most Vets had a certificate (like a trade
qualification) until well within my lifetime.

From my perspective, that's incomprehensible...

....

DPI handled stuff "in house" until it was gutted about 10 years ago.

Who/what is DPI?

....

....
Ah, we've been growing things like Durum wheat here. Queenlands
wheatbelt is in warm temperate and subtropical climates.

But there is a lot of hard white and red wheat grown as well somewhere
down there--otherwise we wouldn't be fighting so hard for market export
share...

Duram is a spring wheat in the US grown in the northern areas as a
summer crop...

...
I wouldn't like wheat quite that short for the reasons stated
before--would force one to run the combine header nearly on the ground
which makes for picking up lots of dirt and wear on the lower carriage
in order to not miss the shorter than average heads.

Our combines have been evolving pretty fast.

No faster than those here, I'm sure. Actually, that raises an
interesting question--is most of your ag equipment designed/built there
or is it from somewhere else, perhaps adapted to specific conditions?

Typical new machine for us--

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCa...leVersion.html

One difference w/ us may be that we're all dryland in rain-limited areas
so that a variety which reaches 2 ft in trials where the rainfall is
adequate probably won't make that in most years for us. Add to that the
shorter than average heads and one is running the header on the ground
to avoid missing some heads.

....
The modern varieties put biomass into leaf formation and grain, little
stalk, suspect they are two to three times the mass per plant of the
earlier varities. ...

Which was precisely my point which seems to contradict your earlier post
to which I responded, thus starting off this most interesting
sub-thread....

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

...

Much of the arable land is used for grass, or grain to feed cattle,
where the carbon is released into that atmosphere as either exhaled CO2
or farted methane. If we used that same land to grow hemp to make paper
and stored the paper in nice dry buildings (made of fibrepanels produced
from hemp) for centuries, that carbon would be sequested, and hemp
produces more biomass per acre tham grass.

And less food and other necessary products...

All I suggested was we use the land currently used to feed cattle.

....

Much of that (at least in the US, and I would assume in Oz as well or it
would already be doing something else) isn't suited for other than range
land.

I great number of cattle are also fed on dual-purpose crops already such
as what we do--we run heifers on wheat pasture and milo stubble over the
fall/winter/early spring, take them off in the spring and send them on
to the feeders while the wheat goes on to grain and we prepare
non-summer fallow ground for the spring planting...

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

JoeSixPack wrote:

Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

So explain Carbonaceous Chondrites.



Whatever their explanation, they're not the source of production oil
reserves.

You have proof of this?

As much proof as you that they are...

As I replied to JoeSixPack on the subject when he complained that
"fringe science" led to new discoveries--"Maybe, but I don't believe
this one is going to be one. We can just hide and watch"

I expect this to not be shown to be.

"Mike McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Solar Flare wrote:


Have you noticed that crop yields have also increased with the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, I haven't. Show us some evidence for that.

Greenhouses use CO2 generators to elevate the level much higher than
atmospheric levels, and there is some benefit. The difference between 1860
levels and 2005 is about 100 ppm. That is a rise of 1 in 10,000. If you got
a yield increase of about 1- 10,000th, or (1% of 1%,) that would make sense.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

JoeSixPack wrote:

Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

So explain Carbonaceous Chondrites.



Whatever their explanation, they're not the source of production oil
reserves.

You have proof of this?

As much proof as you that they are...

As I replied to JoeSixPack on the subject when he complained that
"fringe science" led to new discoveries--"Maybe, but I don't believe
this one is going to be one. We can just hide and watch"

I expect this to not be shown to be.


What's the basis of your expectation? Science or bias?

Duane Bozarth wrote:

....
One difference w/ us may be that we're all dryland in rain-limited areas...

By "us" here I mean our specific situation (which is pretty
representative of a lot of US production but certainly not universal),
not us in the sense of all US producers...

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

....
As much proof as you that they are...

As I replied to JoeSixPack on the subject when he complained that
"fringe science" led to new discoveries--"Maybe, but I don't believe
this one is going to be one. We can just hide and watch"

I expect this to not be shown to be.

What's the basis of your expectation? Science or bias?

My reading of what papers/references I have seen tempered by my
engineering/physics training...

JoeSixPack wrote:
"Mike McWilliams" wrote in message
...

Have you noticed that crop yields have also increased with the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, I haven't. Show us some evidence for that.

Greenhouses use CO2 generators to elevate the level much higher than
atmospheric levels, and there is some benefit. The difference between 1860
levels and 2005 is about 100 ppm. That is a rise of 1 in 10,000.

Er, no. CO2 level rose from about 280 PPM to 370 PPM.

That is a rise of 90 from a baseline of 280, or an increase of over 30%

If you got
a yield increase of about 1- 10,000th, or (1% of 1%,) that would make sense.

No, that wouldn't make any sense at all.

kryppy wrote:

On 25 Sep 2005 12:26:02 -0700, wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article aahZe.249043$9A2.73762@edtnps89, "JoeSixPack" wrote:

Very simple. The atmosphere won't know the difference between fossil fuel or
biofuel. The carbon emissions are the same. Growing more crops for biofuels
won't cause the CO2 to go down

Nonsense -- of course it will. The carbon which those plants incorporate as
they grow comes from atmospheric CO2.

But you intend to burn those plants, putting the carbon back into the
air. So you are not reducing the carbon, just keeping it at the same
level. To reduce the carbon you would need to grow the plants then
take the carbon out of the cycle by not using the plants for fuel.

How many blocks of dry ice do we need to eject into space to fix all
this?

More practical...grow bamboo...turn into charcoal....bury in mine
shafts...

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

--
Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it

This tag line is generated by:

SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)

"sno" wrote in message ...


kryppy wrote:

On 25 Sep 2005 12:26:02 -0700, wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article aahZe.249043$9A2.73762@edtnps89, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Very simple. The atmosphere won't know the difference between fossil
fuel or
biofuel. The carbon emissions are the same. Growing more crops for
biofuels
won't cause the CO2 to go down

Nonsense -- of course it will. The carbon which those plants
incorporate as
they grow comes from atmospheric CO2.

But you intend to burn those plants, putting the carbon back into the
air. So you are not reducing the carbon, just keeping it at the same
level. To reduce the carbon you would need to grow the plants then
take the carbon out of the cycle by not using the plants for fuel.

How many blocks of dry ice do we need to eject into space to fix all
this?

More practical...grow bamboo...turn into charcoal....bury in mine
shafts...

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno


Do a little mental math. How any tons of carbon would you need to handle to
make a significant difference to the atmosphere?

We are putting 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually, so
to just to hold the levels static, you would have to handle about 2500 lbs
of bamboo for every man, woman and child on earth. How practical is that
scheme?

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reduce our consumption of carbon-based fuels?

Do we really need to burn up 75 kilowatts of hydrocarbon fuel energy just to
visit a friend in the next city? Electricity or hydrogen fuel seem to make
more sense.

You sound like someone who finds the hardest possible way to do a task.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Brock Ulfsen

wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


JoeSixPack wrote:


Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

So explain Carbonaceous Chondrites.


Coming right up...

" A rare type of stony meteorite which contains large amounts of the
magnesium-rich minerals olivine and serpentine and a variety of organic
compounds, including amino acids. Although fewer than 100 carbonaceous
chondrites are known..."

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbchon.html

Do you *really* think that's where Earth's petroleum came from? Rare
meteorites, of which fewer than a hundred are known? Get real.

What percentage of the rocks that hit in the Age of Planetesimals were
Carbonaceous Chondrites? What is the percentage mass of such rocks that
is organics? What is the mass of the Earth?

The numbers do add up, if you care to look.


Nonsense -- they don't even come *close* to adding up. What part of "rare ..
fewer than 100 known" do you have a hard time understanding?

That's bit's of loose space-rock sitting on the surface of the earth. We
are fairly sure some of the asteroids are Carbonaceous Chondrites.
Carbonaceous Chonrites are rich in volatlies and thus much more likely
to pop on entry to atmosphere.

And, last I looked, there was less oil than crust, and there isn't a lot
of crust on the earth... you might even say it was "rare" in relation to
the rest of the planet...

....Brock.

JoeSixPack wrote:

"sno" wrote in message ...


kryppy wrote:

On 25 Sep 2005 12:26:02 -0700, wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article aahZe.249043$9A2.73762@edtnps89, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Very simple. The atmosphere won't know the difference between fossil
fuel or
biofuel. The carbon emissions are the same. Growing more crops for
biofuels
won't cause the CO2 to go down

Nonsense -- of course it will. The carbon which those plants
incorporate as
they grow comes from atmospheric CO2.

But you intend to burn those plants, putting the carbon back into the
air. So you are not reducing the carbon, just keeping it at the same
level. To reduce the carbon you would need to grow the plants then
take the carbon out of the cycle by not using the plants for fuel.

How many blocks of dry ice do we need to eject into space to fix all
this?

More practical...grow bamboo...turn into charcoal....bury in mine
shafts...

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno


Do a little mental math. How any tons of carbon would you need to handle to
make a significant difference to the atmosphere?

We are putting 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually, so
to just to hold the levels static, you would have to handle about 2500 lbs
of bamboo for every man, woman and child on earth. How practical is that
scheme?

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reduce our consumption of carbon-based fuels?

Do we really need to burn up 75 kilowatts of hydrocarbon fuel energy just to
visit a friend in the next city? Electricity or hydrogen fuel seem to make
more sense.

You sound like someone who finds the hardest possible way to do a task.

LOL....my idea gets rid of more carbon with less energy then making dry
ice and shooting it into space..I think..more practical....grin....

Hydrogen is not a replacement for oil ..it is a storage medium...like
a battery...you need to separate from whatever it is chemically bound
to...in order to get...and when you use it you get less energy back..
if the separation is done by electricity that is not produced by oil,
it ends up not being a losing game..

Electricity works if not generated by oil...using hydro or wind or
nuclear
you can produce more out then you have to put in, the first two put in
the energy from the sun which is basically free, nuclear puts in the
binding energy of the atom which is a lot more energy then it takes
to refine the fuel....bio fuels are iffy...it is not clear yet whether
it
takes more energy to produce...energy to run farm machines, energy for
fertilizer, etc...

have fun.....sno

--
Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it

This tag line is generated by:

SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reduce our consumption of carbon-based fuels?

Do we really need to burn up 75 kilowatts of hydrocarbon fuel energy just to
visit a friend in the next city? Electricity or hydrogen fuel seem to make
more sense.


Electricity and hydrgogen fuel cells are not energy sources in the
macro context. they are energy transfer, just like springs.
They do not solve the problem you seem to think they solve.

(They do solve a DIFFERENT problem, which is why they're a good
idea, anyway.)

--Goedjn

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:
I seem to recall that most Vets had a certificate (like a trade
qualification) until well within my lifetime.

From my perspective, that's incomprehensible...

Kind of like doing a nursing course at a hospital (Australia moved to
University bases nursing training only in the last 10 or 15 years) as
opposed to getting a degree in medicine.

DPI handled stuff "in house" until it was gutted about 10 years ago.

Who/what is DPI?

Department of Primary Industries, each State has one.

Ah, we've been growing things like Durum wheat here. Queenlands
wheatbelt is in warm temperate and subtropical climates.

But there is a lot of hard white and red wheat grown as well somewhere
down there--otherwise we wouldn't be fighting so hard for market export
share...

Possibly in the far south of Western Australia. The US doesn't export,
it dumps, when it has surplusses, it undercuts us, then often can't
deliver in later years at any price. We can't do the same, the US
complains to the WTO. Also the US sunsidises farmers, we don't. And they
subsidise exports, we don't do that either.

I wouldn't like wheat quite that short for the reasons stated
before--would force one to run the combine header nearly on the ground
which makes for picking up lots of dirt and wear on the lower carriage
in order to not miss the shorter than average heads.

Our combines have been evolving pretty fast.

No faster than those here, I'm sure. Actually, that raises an
interesting question--is most of your ag equipment designed/built there
or is it from somewhere else, perhaps adapted to specific conditions?

The main chasis come from the US. Europe, China, but working gear is
usually added here. Very small market, for medium to large machines mostly.

Typical new machine for us--

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCa...leVersion.html

One difference w/ us may be that we're all dryland in rain-limited areas
so that a variety which reaches 2 ft in trials where the rainfall is
adequate probably won't make that in most years for us. Add to that the
shorter than average heads and one is running the header on the ground
to avoid missing some heads.

We trial in the ares we grow, our farmers don't trust glossy books
without seeing a few hectares growin in their district. Good source of
income for those with highway frontage, grow sample crops with bigs
signs up...

....Brock.

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

....
Possibly in the far south of Western Australia. The US doesn't export,
it dumps, when it has surplusses, it undercuts us, then often can't
deliver in later years at any price. We can't do the same, the US
complains to the WTO. Also the US sunsidises farmers, we don't. And they
subsidise exports, we don't do that either.

Funny how one's point of view depends on locale...that's the exact thing
I hear here, almost to the identical words....

....

We trial in the ares we grow, our farmers don't trust glossy books
without seeing a few hectares growin in their district. Good source of
income for those with highway frontage, grow sample crops with bigs
signs up...

You misunderstood...that's pretty much the same here as well. No
producer will commit an entire planting to any single hybrid nor would
anyone change from their previous experience all at once...

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reduce our consumption of carbon-based
fuels?

Do we really need to burn up 75 kilowatts of hydrocarbon fuel energy just
to
visit a friend in the next city? Electricity or hydrogen fuel seem to
make
more sense.


Electricity and hydrgogen fuel cells are not energy sources in the
macro context. they are energy transfer, just like springs.
They do not solve the problem you seem to think they solve.

(They do solve a DIFFERENT problem, which is why they're a good
idea, anyway.)



Electricity is the cleanest currency for which to transfer energy from the
source to the end use. We won't always believe that burning hydrocarbons
are the answer to everything. Alternate energy potential is truly vast but
expensive to utilize compared to fossil fuels, which are bound to be a
short-term party. Once we grow up and realize the future is in renewable
sources, electricity and hydrogen won't look like such bad energy carriers.

"Brock Ulfsen" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Brock Ulfsen
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Brock Ulfsen


wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


JoeSixPack wrote:


Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

So explain Carbonaceous Chondrites.


Coming right up...

" A rare type of stony meteorite which contains large amounts of the
magnesium-rich minerals olivine and serpentine and a variety of organic
compounds, including amino acids. Although fewer than 100 carbonaceous
chondrites are known..."

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbchon.html

Do you *really* think that's where Earth's petroleum came from? Rare
meteorites, of which fewer than a hundred are known? Get real.

What percentage of the rocks that hit in the Age of Planetesimals were
Carbonaceous Chondrites? What is the percentage mass of such rocks that
is organics? What is the mass of the Earth?

The numbers do add up, if you care to look.


Nonsense -- they don't even come *close* to adding up. What part of "rare
.. fewer than 100 known" do you have a hard time understanding?

That's bit's of loose space-rock sitting on the surface of the earth. We
are fairly sure some of the asteroids are Carbonaceous Chondrites.
Carbonaceous Chonrites are rich in volatlies and thus much more likely to
pop on entry to atmosphere.

And, last I looked, there was less oil than crust, and there isn't a lot
of crust on the earth... you might even say it was "rare" in relation to
the rest of the planet...

...Brock.


Explain how you can look under the crust. An ancient meteorite crater that
pierced the crust has oil and gas coming out. That's more than enough to
justify a reasonable measure of skepticism on the whole theory of biotic
origin.

In article D%j%e.1694$z26.789@edtnps84, "JoeSixPack" wrote:

Explain how you can look under the crust. An ancient meteorite crater that
pierced the crust has oil and gas coming out. That's more than enough to
justify a reasonable measure of skepticism on the whole theory of biotic
origin.

Hogwash, in so many, many ways. Just for starters... name *one*, just *one*,
meteorite crater anywhere on the planet that "pierced the crust".

Another: oil drilling, and all known oil deposits, are *in* the crust. Not
"under" it.

Further: hypothetical oil and gas seeps around your hypothetical meteorite
crater implies *nothing* about the origin of said oil and gas, but rather
demonstrates only that the meteorite fractured the crust above an existing oil
and gas deposit.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.