On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:43:04 -0000, Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Heh. Good point, but I get the feeling the guy was talking about cars.
He went from "many" to one model that isn't produced, pretty quickly.

Lots of little motor-bikes and scooters over there -- a fair number of
which get mileage numbers in that range. Top speeds of 65 km/h, or less,
(sometimes significantly less) though. Supurbly suited for 'in-town'
errands and such, much less so for inter-city travel.

Wouldn't do for me for my 90+ miles per day commute, I'm afraid.
That and the whole "idiots not seeing bikes" problem.

Well, if it was linear, sure. But, aerodynamics play a bigger part than
you'd think at higher speeds. A late 60's/early 70's Saab 96 weighs
something like 1900 pounds, has a 1.7 liter engine, and gets 25MPG.

Yeah, you have to reduce the frontal cross-section, and thus aero drag,
proportionally, as well. Which is why I continued ....

I'm underwhelmed with those Saab figures -- in that same time-frame, got
23MPG in-town, with a 3200lb Dodge, with a 4.6L V-8 engine in it.

Well, it was just an example of "car of that weight and displacement not
getting 80" I guess was my point. Saab has always been very good about
aerodynamics; I think the drag coefficient of the Saab 96 is 0.39 or so,
which for a 1960 design is pretty low.

Or, something lightened so far that it's unsafe. I'd rather spend a bit
more on fuel and live. Make it biofuel so we can make it here, rather
than giving money to people who hate us, and we're getting somewhere.

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

No, I haven't, but I know there's an awful lot of farmland in CRP (or
whatever it's called this decade), which could be growing corn for
alcohol or soybeans for biodiesel/cattle feed if it paid well enough.
I'd rather see the gummint subsidize something like that than some of
the other (ahem) stupid stuff it's spending our money on.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:11:38 GMT, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Why waste time with farmland when you have all the used oil drom those
deep well fryers at the fat farms of the country such as McDonalds,
Burger King, etc, available?

That's fine for one person, or a small group, but the volume isn't close
to what's needed to make it into an infrastructure process.

Robert Bonomi wrote:

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
positives.

Which relates to the question I posed, how?

How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
either ethanol or biodiesel?

I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.

OK, I did find a reference...for ethanol, 2.65 gal(anhydrous)/bu corn.
At 200 bu/A (easy) that's 530 gal/A == ~17 bbl/A. So a 1000 bbl == 60
A.

The 2.65 gal/bu came from

http://www.bbibiofuels.com/ethanolev...Ethanol-lr.pdf

Haven't found a number for biodiesel/gal soybeans for comparison yet...

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Robert Bonomi
wrote:

How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
either ethanol or biodiesel?

That's a good question, and I've throw it to at one of our senior
reporters at work (farm newspaper) to see if they know the answer.
.....

As a followup I sent a query to the National Biodiesel Board...here's
the response...

Biodiesel has a positive energy balance when compared to petroleum diesel
fuel. A life cycle study conducted by the Departments of Energy and
Agriculture showed that for every unit of fossil energy needed to produce
biodiesel you get 3.2 units of energy out. Biodiesel has one of the highest
energy balances of any renewable fuel.

Over the last five years average soybean yield in the US was 38.4 bushels
per acre. Each bushel of soybeans produces approximately 1.44 gallons of
biodiesel. Therefore, an acre of soybeans could yield just over 55 gallons
of biodiesel.

Extrapolating on basis of 31.5 gal/bbl, that would convert to something
under 600 A/1000 bbl, higher than the estimate for ethanol from corn,
but still, there are millions of actres in production and additional
acres can easily be devoted if needed.

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
positives.

Which relates to the question I posed, how?

How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
either ethanol or biodiesel?

I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.

OK, I did find a reference...for ethanol, 2.65 gal(anhydrous)/bu corn.
At 200 bu/A (easy) that's 530 gal/A == ~17 bbl/A. So a 1000 bbl == 60
A.

Except those numbers don't add up.

200 bu/a is *really* optimistic. 140-160 is more the 'typical' range for
serious corn growing states -- e.g. Iowa, Nebr, Missouri, etc.
non-corn-belt states will be significantly lower yields. USDA figures
for the 2001 crop put the nation-wide yield at 131+ bu/acre -- the _third_
_highest_ number on record.

And a bbl of oil is 42 gallons.

Combined, you get a more realistic number of 9.46 bbl/acre.

Now, here's what I was leading up to ---

A car, driven 15,000 miles/year, and getting 25mpg, will need 14.285 bbl
of fuel/year. That's the output from 1.5 acres.

The entire corn crop for the state of Iowa, last year, was 1.2 million acres.
100% conversion to fuel, would be about 800,000 cars worth. Somewhat over
_half_ the cars registered in the state. Not counting any bus/truck/etc.
demand.

Automobile usage is a small part of total fuel consumption. like 1/5 or less.
of vehicular use. well under 10% of all petroleum consumption, when you
include oil-fired heating, farm implement, and marine use.

Iowa's _entire_ corn crop, used for fuel, might make a 2-3% reduction in
petroleum fuel usage in Iowa. With a realistic level of diversion to fuel,
you might get a 0.5% reduction _in_Iowa_. On a national basis, probably
an order of magnitude (at least) lower.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Automobile usage is a small part of total fuel consumption. like 1/5 or less.
of vehicular use. well under 10% of all petroleum consumption, when you
include oil-fired heating, farm implement, and marine use.


Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used. Petroleum
is the single most important feedstock for organic chemicals like
virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and solvents.

Your arithmetic is quite sobering.

--

FF

Robert Bonomi wrote:

....
Iowa's _entire_ corn crop, used for fuel, might make a 2-3% reduction in
petroleum fuel usage in Iowa. With a realistic level of diversion to fuel,
you might get a 0.5% reduction _in_Iowa_. On a national basis, probably
an order of magnitude (at least) lower.

It's not a panacea, no...never claimed it to be. It is a positice
impact, however, and has an added benefit of increased markets for ag
products...

There's 200-bu corn raised even here, though. Not that it's
actually that high an average, that's true. There are so many different
"barrels" I wasn't positive which one is the one used in the general
sense. The 31.5/gal factor came from my Perry's Chem E Handbook...

wrote:


Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used. Petroleum
is the single most important feedstock for organic chemicals like
virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and solvents.

Your arithmetic is quite sobering.


IMHO, the only thing that will solve the oil shortage problem is economics.

$10/gal gasoline would bring lots of new technology out of the wood
work, but as long as the fossil fuel industry is in control of US energy
policy and their stooge occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Av, there will be no
meaningful solutions brought forward.

Lew

(in
) said:

| Robert Bonomi wrote:
|| ...
||
|| Automobile usage is a small part of total fuel consumption. like
|| 1/5 or less. of vehicular use. well under 10% of all petroleum
|| consumption, when you include oil-fired heating, farm implement,
|| and marine use.
|
| Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used.
| Petroleum is the single most important feedstock for organic
| chemicals like virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and
| solvents.
|
| Your arithmetic is quite sobering.

It is indeed.

We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land will
be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will become
sharply more expensive.

If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently high,
we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to repetitively
planting the same crop on the same land until the soil is exhausted.
Should we get to that point, there will be serious breakage - and the
worst of it won't be in the corn belt.

We urgently need to develop alternative energy sources and rethink
(especially) our building, production, and transportation
technologies. Even 200 mpg cars and 100 mpg trucks won't solve the
problem, or even just keep us from freezing in the winter.

We should perhaps begin thnking in terms of /passenger/ miles per
gallon and /ton/ miles per gallon instead of /vehicle/ miles per
gallon.

And (near and dear to /my/ heart) we need to improve thermal
efficiency of the structures we build so that those structures /can/
be 100 - 150% solar heated. All of the technology we need to
accomplish this is already available - the problem is that most of
what we build with traditional methods is so "lossy" that solar can
only provide 30 - 50% of the energy needed for heat.

All of this points to a need for improved and expanded architectural
and engineering education - at a time when quality of education
appears to be "on the skids".

rant
It makes me crazy that people seem so willing to say: "What do you
expect from me - /I/ can't do anything," and expect that politicians
will /legislate/ a (no cost) solution. Have we really dumbed down that
much?
/rant

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Morris Dovey" writes:


[...]

We urgently need to develop alternative energy sources and rethink
(especially) our building, production, and transportation
technologies. Even 200 mpg cars and 100 mpg trucks won't solve the
problem, or even just keep us from freezing in the winter.

Even more urgently we need to scale down our need for production and
transportation, or at least put a stop to it's growth, wich otherwise
eats up all efficiency gains.

[...]

rant
It makes me crazy that people seem so willing to say: "What do you
expect from me - /I/ can't do anything," and expect that politicians
will /legislate/ a (no cost) solution. Have we really dumbed down that
much?
/rant

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Morris Dovey wrote:
.....
We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land will
be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will become
sharply more expensive.

If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently high,
we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to repetitively
planting the same crop on the same land until the soil is exhausted.
Should we get to that point, there will be serious breakage - and the
worst of it won't be in the corn belt.

I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, at
present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop ground in
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, IF (that's the "big
if" ) it were necessary and economical, be brought back into
production for many of these ancillary crops as well as corn and
soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is any segment that is
concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
producers--after all, that is our direct livelihood, not indirect.

.....

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
propose to achieve *that*?

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

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

And don't forget that the btu per unit weight of alcohol is only about
1/2 that of diesel or gasoline.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
propose to achieve *that*?

Plus, I doubt the folks in the third world countries will continue to be
content with that scenario even if their populations were to somehow
magically become stable...

Lawrence Wasserman wrote:

And don't forget that the btu per unit weight of alcohol is only about
1/2 that of diesel or gasoline.


But about 70-80% by volume....

Duane Bozarth writes:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
propose to achieve *that*?

Plus, I doubt the folks in the third world countries will continue to be
content with that scenario even if their populations were to somehow
magically become stable...


Of course economic growth in the hird world is still necessary, but in
the developped part the situation is different; and having an economy
whose main interest is growth also in the third world will not work in
the long term.
How to stabilize populations I have no viable idea other than
education, ironically also economic growth, awareness-raising and
abandoning ploicies like the global gag rule.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Duane Bozarth (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
| ....
|| We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land
|| will be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
|| sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
|| derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will
|| become sharply more expensive.
|
|| If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently
|| high, we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to
|| repetitively planting the same crop on the same land until the
|| soil is exhausted. Should we get to that point, there will be
|| serious breakage - and the worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
|
| I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing,
| at present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop
| ground in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, IF
| (that's the "big if" ) it were necessary and economical, be
| brought back into production for many of these ancillary crops as
| well as corn and soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is
| any segment that is concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the
| land, it is we producers--after all, that is our direct
| livelihood, not indirect.

You're right, the scenario I presented assumed no major scientific
breakthrough - and a prolonged "emergency" (as defined by folks in
DC.)

The really sad scenario would be removing control of the land from
those who have a sense of stewardship in favor of management by larger
("more efficient") organizations who aren't able to do much of
anything well except make campaign contributions.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Connecticut condemnation
case provides precedent for other cases that *will* affect family
farms. The only questions are how many farms, and where, and for what
purpose...

"National security interests" appears to have become a buzz phrase to
justify even the most outrageous behavior. These days it even trumps
principles like "due process".

I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Juergen Hannappel wrote:

....
Of course economic growth in the hird world is still necessary, but in
the developped part the situation is different; and having an economy
whose main interest is growth also in the third world will not work in
the long term.
....

Well, in actuality it isn't so different except in relative starting
points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
perpetuity....

W/ apologies to Garrison Keeler, your scenario asks for a situation
where ".. all families' incomes are above average."

Morris Dovey wrote:
....
I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.

No point in being "gloomy Gus" as Grandpa always said (and he made it
through the Dust Bowl days in SW KS--right in the middle of some the
most severely ravaged areas--and we raised some 60 bu/A dryland! wheat
this year on that same ground.

The Court specifically allowed for States to set controls over such
behavior and I strongly expect them to do so. Most midwestern states
already have limitations on corporate farming altho istr that Iowa is
not as strict as the "bread basket" states from ND to TX? I know there
is more pressure in some areas in Iowa from increasing urbanization that
isn't as strong farther west where it's drier. The key production
limitation here continues to be water, which will become more so, even
more limiting than fuel availability and cost.

Duane Bozarth writes:

[...]

Well, in actuality it isn't so different except in relative starting
points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
perpetuity....

Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.

Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.


W/ apologies to Garrison Keeler, your scenario asks for a situation
where ".. all families' incomes are above average."

We should aim at getting average and median closer togeher.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
....
We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land will
be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will become
sharply more expensive.

If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently high,
we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to repetitively
planting the same crop on the same land until the soil is exhausted.
Should we get to that point, there will be serious breakage - and the
worst of it won't be in the corn belt.

I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, at
present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop ground in
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, IF (that's the "big
if" ) it were necessary and economical, be brought back into
production for many of these ancillary crops as well as corn and
concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
soybeans.

Pulling land out of CRP is a *short*term* only 'fix'. *SMART* farm
production involves carefully designed rotation of crops planted on a
given plot *AND* the cycling of that land _out_of_production_use_ as a
regular element in that rotation. *MOST* CRP acres are land that would
be 'idled' even if CRP didn't exist.

You get more acres in production, *BUT*, over time (meaning 5 years, or
*less*), due to degraded land quality from continuous use, yield/acre goes
_down_. The effective increase in production is nowhere close to the
increased acreage.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
propose to achieve *that*?


Historically, three most important factors to reducing population
growth, in order of effectiveness have been shown to be:

1) Reduced infant/child mortality.

2) Improved general education (not indoctrination, the three R's, and
job-related education) especially for women.

3) Improved access to birth control, especially for women.

Absent immigration, France and Italy would have negative population
growth indeed, near the end of the 20th century they had the lowest
birth rates in the world. Hmm, maybe conversion to Catholocism would
help too.

There may be draconian measures that could reduce population growth
but the three stated above, appear to be more than adequate, few
people find them objectionable as a matter of priciple, and those
that do number in inverse proportion to the relative effectiveness.
Further, more draconian measures can backfire by fostering rebellion.
I recall that a cow-orker helped his sister-in-law and her family
emigrate from China to the US back in the 1990s. The couple
had twelve (12) children all under the age of 18, some born during
the period when childbirth in China was illegal, all born when
having more than one child was illegal.

I don't claim to have a deep understanding of the whys but the reasons
for the effectiveness of these factors seem to be:

1) Improved infant and child survival rates encourage parents to have
fewer children and to invest more in those they have (which feeds
back into the second factor.)

2) Improved education, especially for women, gives people, especially
women, something to which to dedicate their time besides making
babies.

3) Pretty much self-explanatory but the interesting thing is the
greater
effectiveness of the first too.

The principle obstacles to implimenting them seem to be that all three
and the resultant reduced population growth itself serve to reduce
the world population that is easily explaoitable for political and
especially for economic purposes.

--

FF

Juergen Hannappel wrote:

Duane Bozarth writes:

[...]

Well, in actuality it isn't so different except in relative starting
points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
perpetuity....

Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.

Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.

Well, that change in human nature has eluded all who've tried it so far
and likely will continue to do so. Not much use in wishing for what
will never be...



W/ apologies to Garrison Keeler, your scenario asks for a situation
where ".. all families' incomes are above average."

We should aim at getting average and median closer togeher.

....

That's an aim directly targetted by most developed nations' tax
structure--but it's not clear that punitively taxing the upper echelon
actually does anything to actually promote the objective.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date...

Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.

Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.

I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
whole plant, rather than just the kernals?

One wonders what selective breeding/genetic engineering can do for
each, improving the range for sorghum and the sugar content for
both. Appears it would take a ten-fold improvement in the yield
before biofuels could replace petroleum fuels and that still
does not address coals usage, which generates most of the electricity
used in the US.

--

FF

Duane Bozarth writes:


[...]

Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.

Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.

Well, that change in human nature has eluded all who've tried it so far

I know.

and likely will continue to do so. Not much use in wishing for what
will never be...

Guess why I will definedly not have children.


[...]

That's an aim directly targetted by most developed nations' tax
structure--but it's not clear that punitively taxing the upper echelon
actually does anything to actually promote the objective.

Since the punitive tax is so extremely mild the effect is small.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Robert Bonomi wrote:

....
Pulling land out of CRP is a *short*term* only 'fix'. *SMART* farm
production involves carefully designed rotation of crops planted on a
given plot *AND* the cycling of that land _out_of_production_use_ as a
regular element in that rotation. *MOST* CRP acres are land that would
be 'idled' even if CRP didn't exist.

The last of those is definitely not true...well over half of the
county in which I reside is now in CRP (including a sizable fraction of
ours). The reason is only that it was an available option at a time
when a significant number of those farming it were, as my Dad, at the
age of retirement and the kids (including me) had left owing to various
factors, a lot having to do w/ the great "land depression" after the
Carter era grain embargoes that killed the small grain export markets.

You get more acres in production, *BUT*, over time (meaning 5 years, or
*less*), due to degraded land quality from continuous use, yield/acre goes
_down_. The effective increase in production is nowhere close to the
increased acreage.

No, the average production of the similar land still in production has
actually increased dramatically since the time of the initial CRP
put-ins. This is owing to continuing improvements in genetics as well
as practices. Low- and no-till has had marked success in actually
improving tilth as opposed to degrading it combined w/ decreasing
inputs. Of course, the cultivation cycle does include rotation,
including fallow periods. This is a mandatory part of an effective pest
control strategy even without the consideration of fertility.

There is no chance that any significant numbers of people living on
and farming it for a living will not continue to improve practices, not
degrade them. It is economically required to survive as well as common
sense. Plus, if my input requirements were to skyrocket owing to such
practice, my friendly hometown banker would immediately demand to know
why and put a stop to my endangering his collateral!

I've not and do not advocate widespread removal of CRP ground--I only
mentioned it as it is there in quite large acreages and could, if
circumstances were right, be returned to production. If the 2007 farm
bill reduces the payout as much again as the last time, I think it will
be inevitable that a sizable amount will be broken back out as it will
not be feasible economically to maintain it with it not producing more
than it would be at that point. I'm hoping it won't, but making long
term plans just in case...

wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date...

Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.

Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.

I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
whole plant, rather than just the kernals?

No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
largely used up.

One wonders what selective breeding/genetic engineering can do for
each, improving the range for sorghum and the sugar content for
both. Appears it would take a ten-fold improvement in the yield
before biofuels could replace petroleum fuels and that still
does not address coals usage, which generates most of the electricity
used in the US.

There are continuing significant improvements in hybrids specifically
for ethanol production in corn and soybeans for biodiesel. I am unaware
of any research into large-scale usage of milo for ethanol--I believe
the potential yields are simply not competitive w/ corn.

No one, even its most ardent supporters, is claiming biofuels can
replace all petroleum. It is simply a resource that is (a) renewable,
and (b) does have a positive NEV (net energy value). The latter does
continue to increase owing to both improved feedstocks and processing.
I suspect both will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, but
have no idea where we are now as compared to the ultimate that may be
achievable.

As for central station generation, the switch from coal to
petroleum-fired was a major mistake as well was the abandonment of
nuclear which should be the predominant form of central station
generation.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.

...

The Court specifically allowed for States to set controls over such
behavior

[the behaviour in question being abuse of emminent domain to effect
tranfer of ownership from one private party to another private party]

and I strongly expect them to do so.

That's the problem, not the solution! Leaving it up to government
to decide who may keep their property and who must sell it to
another PRIVATE party is not only morally wrong it is also certain
to result in land-usage that favors short-term monetary profit at
the expense of anything else including what would be best for
society in the long run.

Agriculture will never be able to lobby as effectively for a
specific parcel of land as will 'developers'. The money to
be made per acre per election cycle for 'development' will
always be orders of magnitude greater than that made from
agriculture for the same acreage over the same election cycle.
duration of one election cycle. Now factor in the tax-revenue
generated per acre post-'developement' as compared to that
for farmland or, God forbid undeveloped land. Only that
rarest of creatures, a politician acting for the best long-term
interests of society, can resist all that.

--

FF

Juergen Hannappel wrote:

Duane Bozarth writes:

[...]

Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.

Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.

Well, that change in human nature has eluded all who've tried it so far

I know.

and likely will continue to do so. Not much use in wishing for what
will never be...

Guess why I will definedly not have children.

[...]

That's an aim directly targetted by most developed nations' tax
structure--but it's not clear that punitively taxing the upper echelon
actually does anything to actually promote the objective.

Since the punitive tax is so extremely mild the effect is small.
--

In places outside the US it isn't nearly as small...I ran across an
engineer at a Canadian power plant a number of years ago while servicing
equipment on site. He was complaining that the pay packet contained
less than half of his earnings. Needless to say, it was not motivation
to improve the economics of his province, thus providing for the growth
required to "lift" the others in less fortunate circumstances. It
simply is against human nature, and thereby self-limiting.

wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
....
...

The Court specifically allowed for States to set controls over such
behavior

[the behaviour in question being abuse of emminent domain to effect
tranfer of ownership from one private party to another private party]

and I strongly expect them to do so.

That's the problem, not the solution! Leaving it up to government
to decide who may keep their property and who must sell it to
another PRIVATE party is not only morally wrong it is also certain
to result in land-usage that favors short-term monetary profit at
the expense of anything else including what would be best for
society in the long run.
....

That's not the take I have....I fully expect public outcry to force
legislatures to severely restrict the usage of eminent domain...

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:
Duane Bozarth writes:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Juergen Hannappel
wrote:

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do
you
propose to achieve *that*?

Plus, I doubt the folks in the third world countries will continue to be
content with that scenario even if their populations were to somehow
magically become stable...


Of course economic growth in the hird world is still necessary, but in
the developped part the situation is different; and having an economy
whose main interest is growth also in the third world will not work in
the long term.
How to stabilize populations I have no viable idea other than
education, ironically also economic growth, awareness-raising and
abandoning ploicies like the global gag rule.

So zero economic growth requires zero population growth, and we achieve zero
population growth by greater-than-zero economic growth.

Right. I got it.

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

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

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:
Duane Bozarth writes:

[...]

Well, in actuality it isn't so different except in relative starting
points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
perpetuity....

Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.

How do you propose to achieve this leveling of the standard of living? That
experiment was tried, you know, beginning in 1917. And it didn't work.

I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.

Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.

We should aim at getting average and median closer togeher.

Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.
Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.

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

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

(Doug Miller) writes:

[...]


I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.

So would I if I thought it were possible. But consider that the
standar of living cannot be measured by metreial wealth alone.

[...]

Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.

As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
poor will open ever farther.

Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.

Today with no formal division between a well of nobility and a
rightless population but rather a graduation of differences with the
lure of everyone hope to get richer personaly there is less chance of
a revolution than at the end of feudal reign.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

(Doug Miller) writes:

[...]


I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.

So would I if I thought it were possible. But consider that the
standard of living cannot be measured by material wealth alone.

[...]

Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.

As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
poor will open ever farther.

Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.

Today with no formal division between a well of nobility and a
rightless population but rather a graduation of differences with the
lure of everyone hope to get richer personaly there is less chance of
a revolution than at the end of feudal reign.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, at
present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop ground in
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, IF (that's the "big
if" ) it were necessary and economical, be brought back into
production for many of these ancillary crops as well as corn and
soybeans.

Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself. If I could make much more with
soybeans, I'd consider it, but right now it's just as profitable, and
much less work, to let it sit.

As for land "exhaustion", if there is any segment that is
concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
producers--after all, that is our direct livelihood, not indirect.

Yes. The days of people being ignorant of crop rotation and soil
quality are long gone. Some may choose not to do any of it, but they're
at lesat not ignorant of it.

At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting
soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:31:40 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
propose to achieve *that*?

Well, last time a German fellow proposed that sort of thing, it didn't
go well...

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
....

Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself.

Well, as I suspected, your experience "back there" is in the buffer
or wetland programs...we have 6 full quarters of our own plus 4 more we
still rent on shares...that's right at 1600 A. There are another 10
contiguous quarters abutting all this from four separate neighbors who
all chose to retire and start the CRP lay-in at or within a couple of
years of the time Dad started. All except one were at least in their
70's at that time. The one exception had nearly gone under w/ the hog
market disaster and took it as the only way to save the home place at
the time. He was in his early 60s. The same scenario took place over
large areas out here, not just in our county.

....

As for land "exhaustion", if there is any segment that is
concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
producers--after all, that is our direct livelihood, not indirect.

Yes. The days of people being ignorant of crop rotation and soil
quality are long gone. Some may choose not to do any of it, but they're
at lesat not ignorant of it.

I know none that are real production farmers that aren't both aware and
serious practicioners--it is simply not possible to survive economically
otherwise. All those who used to operate that way are long gone, at
least around here.

At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting
soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe.

At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different.
It could be hayed for breakeven most years...w/ the requirements for
mowing, weed control, etc., the operating cost is not trivial. We got
an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us
to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been
placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to
eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback),
it costs $20/A just for the chemical, w/o application cost. It just
really chaps me that they made us plant the damn weeds in the grass in
the first place (which incidentally cost us half that cost out of pocket
besides), introducing the stuff in the first place, and now the entire
control cost comes out of our pocket on top of which the new leases are
for 20% or more less than the initial. If that occurs again, it's
almost a given it will not be renewed. It may stay in grass, but it at
least will be able to be hayed and grazed even if it doesn't go back
into grain production.

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.

So would I if I thought it were possible. But consider that the
standard of living cannot be measured by material wealth alone.

I never said that it was.

Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.

As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
poor will open ever farther.

You are proceeding from a mistaken assumption. You observe economic stagnation
in Europe, and assume that it is the result of economic growth having
encountered a natural limit of some kind, when in fact the stagnation is the
direct, and entirely predictable, result of socialism. Here in America, we do
not share the belief that there are any limits.

Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.

Today with no formal division between a well of nobility and a
rightless population but rather a graduation of differences with the
lure of everyone hope to get richer personaly there is less chance of
a revolution than at the end of feudal reign.

And with good reason, I'd say.

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

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

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:31:40 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Juergen Hannappel
wrote:

To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.

In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do
you
propose to achieve *that*?

Well, last time a German fellow proposed that sort of thing, it didn't
go well...

And I see no grounds for supposing that it would do any better in reruns.

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

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

(Doug Miller) writes:


[...]

As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
poor will open ever farther.

You are proceeding from a mistaken assumption. You observe economic
stagnation in Europe, and assume that it is the result of economic
growth having encountered a natural limit of some kind, when in fact

Not really. I see economic growth all around me taking away all that
is nice in the world. The whines you hear about stagnation in Europe
are just from those that cannot get enough...

the stagnation is the direct, and entirely predictable, result of
socialism.

As the free market advocats make you believe, to your own
disadvantage.

Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any
limits.

That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world
which has to suffer the consequences.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23