Interesting article in Science

[Royd]

Quote:
I can't help but think you are making a joke to divert from the fact your logic is backed into a real corner. I agree with you about airliners and gas and all that.. but the fact that our planet is consuming oil at a rate way higher than the planet can produce it is a very real event, and while technology now may not be feasible... who knows what capabilities we will have in ten years and beyond.

Let it be developed on the private dime...Even if it does become profitable, using public money, do you really think that you or I are going to see an actual, "in your pocket" return? Corrupt politicians and connected people might....I guess for some, feeling good about yourself is as good as actually putting bread on the table.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
I can't help but think you are making a joke to divert from the fact your logic is backed into a real corner. I agree with you about airliners and gas and all that.. but the fact that our planet is consuming oil at a rate way higher than the planet can produce it is a very real event, and while technology now may not be feasible... who knows what capabilities we will have in ten years and beyond.

Let it be developed on the private dime...Even if it does become profitable, using public money, do you really think that you or I are going to see an actual, "in your pocket" return? Corrupt politicians and connected people might....I guess for some, feeling good about yourself is as good as actually putting bread on the table.

OK, then get rid of all the government-backed production....starting with agricultural subsidies. Why do we have to pay farmers to do their job, when they make money selling their product? If they don't make enough money from their product, too bad -- that's capitalism.

How does that work for you?

Or....is it all about the government spending money ONLY on things with which you agree?
Ahhhhh.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
Let it be developed on the private dime...Even if it does become profitable, using public money, do you really think that you or I are going to see an actual, "in your pocket" return? Corrupt politicians and connected people might....I guess for some, feeling good about yourself is as good as actually putting bread on the table.

OK, then get rid of all the government-backed production....starting with agricultural subsidies. Why do we have to pay farmers to do their job, when they make money selling their product? If they don't make enough money from their product, too bad -- that's capitalism.

How does that work for you?

I am in total agreement. It would end those useless, engine destroying ethanol subsidies. It takes more energy to produce than its actual BTU output...It's nothing but another greenie feel good project, which would have failed in the first year, because, on its face, its not viable.

All subsidies, all grants, all research. Let the market sort it out.

National security is one of the few things we have a requirement to support.

Just a side note.....Small 2 cycle engines should be able to run for years, with little to no maintainance. That's how they were designed. Now, repair is big business, due to the use of ethanol. Sounds like a designed scam to me....Sort of like throwing rocks through windows boosts the glass industry.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
OK, then get rid of all the government-backed production....starting with agricultural subsidies. Why do we have to pay farmers to do their job, when they make money selling their product? If they don't make enough money from their product, too bad -- that's capitalism.

How does that work for you?

I am in total agreement. It would end those useless, engine destroying ethanol subsidies. It takes more energy to produce than its actual BTU output...It's nothing but another greenie feel good project, which would have failed in the first year, because, on its face, its not viable.

All subsidies, all grants, all research. Let the market sort it out.

National security is one of the few things we have a requirement to support.

Just a side note.....Small 2 cycle engines should be able to run for years, with little to no maintainance. That's how they were designed. Now, repair is big business, due to the use of ethanol. Sounds like a designed scam to me....Sort of like throwing rocks through windows boosts the glass industry.

The agricultural subsidies have been around far longer than we've been using corn for fuel. They originated to keep food costs low (for consumers) while providing more financial incentive for farmers to continue to produce it. One of the first things "cheap grain" was used for was feeding it to livestock that didn't normally eat it -- cattle. It became cheaper to produce grain-fed beef, pound for pound, then letting them range. There are health risks to people that are amplified with grain-fed cattle, as well as pollution concentration levels much higher than is found among ranged cattle.

Oh, and the price of chicken feed would go way up. Maybe when food costs what it should cost, more people would reduce the amount of animal protein in their diets, since animal protein would also rise in price for the consumer.

Domestic food production would also have to compete with foreign food production, since wages in neighboring countries (i.e. Mexico and the rest of Latin America) are much lower than here. American farmers would have to either cut prices to compete -- reducing their incomes even more -- or go out of business entirely.

Lots of effects from one sweeping change.....have you considered them all, or just the ones that appeal to you?

 

[Royd]

Quote:
I am in total agreement. It would end those useless, engine destroying ethanol subsidies. It takes more energy to produce than its actual BTU output...It's nothing but another greenie feel good project, which would have failed in the first year, because, on its face, its not viable.

All subsidies, all grants, all research. Let the market sort it out.

National security is one of the few things we have a requirement to support.

Just a side note.....Small 2 cycle engines should be able to run for years, with little to no maintainance. That's how they were designed. Now, repair is big business, due to the use of ethanol. Sounds like a designed scam to me....Sort of like throwing rocks through windows boosts the glass industry.

The agricultural subsidies have been around far longer than we've been using corn for fuel. They originated to keep food costs low (for consumers) while providing more financial incentive for farmers to continue to produce it. One of the first things "cheap grain" was used for was feeding it to livestock that didn't normally eat it -- cattle. It became cheaper to produce grain-fed beef, pound for pound, then letting them range. There are health risks to people that are amplified with grain-fed cattle, as well as pollution concentration levels much higher than is found among ranged cattle.

Oh, and the price of chicken feed would go way up. Maybe when food costs what it should cost, more people would reduce the amount of animal protein in their diets, since animal protein would also rise in price for the consumer.

Domestic food production would also have to compete with foreign food production, since wages in neighboring countries (i.e. Mexico and the rest of Latin America) are much lower than here. American farmers would have to either cut prices to compete -- reducing their incomes even more -- or go out of business entirely.

Lots of effects from one sweeping change.....have you considered them all, or just the ones that appeal to you?

Why do you prefer that your tax money go through dozens of money grubbing buearaucracies, than remaining in your pocket, and allowing you to choose how you spend it?....Trust me, when noone buys beef, because the price is through the roof, it will come down.

It's called supply and demand.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

All subsidies, all grants, all research. Let the market sort it out.

I would be very interested in what a society with purely corporate backed research would put out. Perhaps interested isn't the right word.​

 

[Royd]

Quote:
I would be very interested in what a society with purely corporate backed research would put out. Perhaps interested isn't the right word.

I can guarantee that one word we wouldn't have in our vocabulary is Boondoggle.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
The agricultural subsidies have been around far longer than we've been using corn for fuel. They originated to keep food costs low (for consumers) while providing more financial incentive for farmers to continue to produce it. One of the first things "cheap grain" was used for was feeding it to livestock that didn't normally eat it -- cattle. It became cheaper to produce grain-fed beef, pound for pound, then letting them range. There are health risks to people that are amplified with grain-fed cattle, as well as pollution concentration levels much higher than is found among ranged cattle.

Oh, and the price of chicken feed would go way up. Maybe when food costs what it should cost, more people would reduce the amount of animal protein in their diets, since animal protein would also rise in price for the consumer.

Domestic food production would also have to compete with foreign food production, since wages in neighboring countries (i.e. Mexico and the rest of Latin America) are much lower than here. American farmers would have to either cut prices to compete -- reducing their incomes even more -- or go out of business entirely.

Lots of effects from one sweeping change.....have you considered them all, or just the ones that appeal to you?

Why do you prefer that your tax money go through dozens of money grubbing buearaucracies, than remaining in your pocket, and allowing you to choose how you spend it?....Trust me, when noone buys beef, because the price is through the roof, it will come down.

It's called supply and demand.

It's funny...I learned of examples back high school where pure laissez-faire capitalism was tried and failed....the beast becomes too aggressive without being yoked to work for good. I'm amazed that adults still go around saying that a system of capitalism purely driven by supply and demand is a good thing to use. Such a system would also allow a monopoly to form -- if the market allows for one producer to become so successful that he buys out his competition, so be it. Only with regulation can this be prevented. Monopolies don't work within pure capitalism because there is no choice between producers, yet without regulation, monopolies will form. So a truly "hands-off market-driven capitalism" will eventually shut itself down.

The price of producing beef purely on range will not go as low as what we currently pay, because if the cost to produce exceeds what people are willing to pay, then people will stop producing, and the supply will go down. When people can't find ANY beef except at free-range grass-fed beef prices, then that's their only alternative. You're assuming that pure "supply and demand" will always cause prices to drop, and that's not true. Producers will not produce a product for below-cost sale just because that's what consumers are willing to pay. And what people are paying now IS a below-cost price when considering agricultural subsidies.

 

[chickened]

Logic backs itself into a corner, what is logical about reaping and sowing? what is logical about a little old lady who smokes 3 packs a day with clean lungs? what is logical about birds KNOWING to fly south for the winter or a pigeon returning home or a salmon returning to the exact stream it spawned from except for the strays that seem to show up in other hatcheries?. The reasons are all scientific guesses. Logic is not always right, it has its place when proven but in certain arenas it falls flat on its face, surely you realize this? Just because one cannot explain something factually does not mean it never happened or will. What is taken for logic these days is often deliberate obtuse speculation.

There may be other energy sources out there, Oil has been used for thousands of years only lately was it pumped out of the ground. Clean coal is abundant but it is not PC. I prefer Hydroelectric and you know what if it means propagating salmon to offset the losses then well you do what ya gotta do.
Quote:
I can't help but think you are making a joke to divert from the fact your logic is backed into a real corner. I agree with you about airliners and gas and all that.. but the fact that our planet is consuming oil at a rate way higher than the planet can produce it is a very real event, and while technology now may not be feasible... who knows what capabilities we will have in ten years and beyond.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
Why do you prefer that your tax money go through dozens of money grubbing buearaucracies, than remaining in your pocket, and allowing you to choose how you spend it?....Trust me, when noone buys beef, because the price is through the roof, it will come down.

It's called supply and demand.

It's funny...I learned of examples back high school where pure laissez-faire capitalism was tried and failed....the beast becomes too aggressive without being yoked to work for good. I'm amazed that adults still go around saying that a system of capitalism purely driven by supply and demand is a good thing to use. Such a system would also allow a monopoly to form -- if the market allows for one producer to become so successful that he buys out his competition, so be it. Only with regulation can this be prevented. Monopolies don't work within pure capitalism because there is no choice between producers, yet without regulation, monopolies will form. So a truly "hands-off market-driven capitalism" will eventually shut itself down.

The price of producing beef purely on range will not go as low as what we currently pay, because if the cost to produce exceeds what people are willing to pay, then people will stop producing, and the supply will go down. When people can't find ANY beef except at free-range grass-fed beef prices, then that's their only alternative. You're assuming that pure "supply and demand" will always cause prices to drop, and that's not true. Producers will not produce a product for below-cost sale just because that's what consumers are willing to pay. And what people are paying now IS a below-cost price when considering agricultural subsidies.

And the experiment of Keynsian Economic Theory is failing, right in front of our eyes. Sadly, there seems to be an idealogical battle with regulations....Big business and corporations use regulations to force the small guy out of business, I.E. Grandma can no longer sell her Christmas cake at the fleamarket, without labeling, license, fees, inspections, etc.
The other side of the coin is government, under the guise of protecting the people, are trying regulate big business out of business. Clean coal, ethanol, land usage, zoning, etc.....The days of the storeowner living above the store are over....Why? Because govt. wants to milk a few more tax dollars out of every industrious person.