|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Yes, It was about oil and about Israel. Just like when all of our leaders,
including Clinton and Obama, show up at AIPAC then promise war against Iran
now. Hmmmmmmmmm. Makes you wonder if anyone in Washington has American's
interest at heart.
Now, as far as ethanol is concerned, I sure appreciate the discussion that
has followed. Many issues require that many get involved if for no other
reason than to just present all of the opposing views. Given this one stock
and the discussions that have followed all of the following issues have come
up:
1. World hunger- i.e. high food prices
2. The thirst for cheap energy in the world and America
3. the lack of cheap energy in America.
4. Global warming
5. The energy in- energy out equation for ethanol
6. Other alternative energies
1. These issues must be separated to effectively solve them. That is part of
the problem. Our news media is putting all the blame on high food prices on
ethanol production. RIGHT. the price for Rice is going up because of
ethanol? or is it perhaps related to the weak dollar and high fuel prices?
Do we owe the world cheap food or should our farmers be promised a good
living. Our farmers are paid to not grow food by our government and they
renewed that to a tune of $20 billion dollars just recently. Corn for
ethanol is a separate crop that that we eat and when farmers decide to grow
it is because they are promised a good return for it. Something they don't
always get for the good stuff.
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Biofuels-Cause-75--Increas-by-The-Telegrap
h-080705-689.html>
2. Alex was right when he said that our government supported ethanol as an
alternative fuel because we have none of our own. But because there is still
that thirst for energy is not the fault of ethanol. That is the lifestyle of
Americans. Arnie had to be shamed in to doing the right thing cause he
doesn't have enough sense to do it on his own. It is expensive gas that is
making ethanol a viable alternative, now. It will do the same for others.
3. We have gotten by for a long time with cheap energy it will only be
expensive energy that cures us of our addiction.
Here is a way to make your own ethanol: They say the best ingredient is
sugar. Cost $1.25/ gallon
<http://www.efuel100.com/>
4. Ethanol creates CO2 when it burns just like other fossil fuels. Some
pseudo global warming solution experts criticized the total CO2 equation
with ethanol which really relates to the cutting of forests in Brazil to
grow sugar but our farmers aren't. you don't see these people recommending a
gas tax to reduce consumption of all fuels. That is what would help and
should have been done 40 years ago.
5. I have seen water consumption numbers for corn fields that make me wonder
if they'd condemn my lawn too. Rain is free. Water can be free. If more
energy was required to make ethanol than came out GPRE couldn't make money.
And they are. The subsidies are so great that it would make that much of a
difference.
6. We now have a chance to consider all alternative energies. It must be
remembered that there is a premium for a source of energy that is portable.
Even if it waste's energy to create ethanol, at least it is portable, which
has some additional value. so, converting coal (cheap) to ethanol in an of
itself adds value. Even breaking down water to Hydrogen and oxygen and using
hydrogen as a fuel has value, even though it is an energy losing process.
The age of free cheap energy is over and there is much sorting out in our
path to the future.
thanks again for your responses,
Jim Bronke
-----Original Message-----
From: tradewynne@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:tradewynne@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 1:04 PM
To: 'Omega List'; PR
Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> Who is going to do the picking? The Gov.?
So far and they picked OIL. They've literally
gone to war for it. While they prevent solar
from leasing public land in order to "protect" the
desert tortoise the oil companies have leases they
don't even bother to drill and are pushing for more
in deep water where a mishap could have extreme
negative global repercussions.
--- On Sat, 7/5/08, PR <10cc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: PR <10cc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> To: "'Omega List'" <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 5:00 PM
> From what I have found over the years it is public one would
> have most
> trouble with when trying to get something done.
> Some of the public agrees with something.
> Some of the public dissagrees with it.
> You have peta, the greenies, hollywood, the country, the
> city and
> in-between.
>
> If the Gov. would do whats right and good for all and not
> worry about how
> and who elected them things could get done a little easier.
> That is why a private company or you and a group of
> friends can do more in
> your backyard or garage than anything to do with the public
> can do or want
> to do.
>
> Kind of like on this forum. I would say look at everything
> and put money
> and labor tpwards it all. But many seems to say solar.
> When that would
> actually be last on my list of stuff. So there you go.
>
> We have to look at all and push for all, but pick what we
> can do now and in
> the near future and do it.
> Who is going to do the picking? The Gov.?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Gurke" <rgurke@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
>
>
> > Speaking of "think-tanks" ...can you imagine
> something along the lines of
> > a Manhattan Project focusing on alternative and/or
> renewable energy
> > technologies. Does anyone believe that we
> couldn't solve this problem
> > fairly quickly, if we actually had the political will
> and devoted the
> > necessary resources to it...
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <marcmiller.themap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:03 PM
> > Subject: Fw: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> >
> >
> >>I agree 100% with Gary.
> >> Right Friggin on- This is EXACTLY what we need to
> do.
> >> This is a very impressive "think-tank"
> here at the omegalist.
> >> US Gov- are you listening?!!
> >> I was in Mexico on vacation, in the city I was
> staying used
> >> SOLAR water heaters on all the rooftops- of course
> it wasn't the climate
> >> of Green Bay, Wisconsin-- but let's see some
> TAX breaks
> >> passed to make this feasable in the areas that can
> support them.
> >> A buddy of mine in California said that he can
> sell electricity back to
> >> the
> >> grid at 90 cents on the dollar, but here where I
> live, a buddy checked
> >> into
> >> solar
> >> and found that he could only selll it for 8-10
> cents on the dollar (back
> >> to
> >> the grid.)
> >> Need some changes made.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Gary Fritz"
> <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:39 AM
> >> Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 Jul 2008 at 21:41, Randy wrote:
> >>> > No matter how much we want or hope for a
> solar , wind alternative
> >>> > energy solution .....it's not going
> to happen . Lump them all
> >>> > together
> >>> > and the most optimistic forecasts are
> 5-10 percent of current
> >>> > consumption.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't have to be. I did a
> back-of-envelope calculation once to see
> >> how
> >>> much solar energy could be produced on the
> government-owned lands of the
> >>> desert Southwest. It would take an area of
> roughly 40,000 square miles
> >>> to
> >>> produce energy equal to the ENTIRE energy
> budget of the US, assuming
> >>> only 10% efficiency. The US Govt owns 200,000
> square miles of prime
> >>> solar
> >>> real estate in Nevada, Arizona, and New
> Mexico. If they would cede 50k
> >>> or
> >>> 100k of that land to a US Energy Trust, they
> could launch a "man-on-the-
> >>> moon" class of initiative that could make
> the US entirely energy self-
> >>> sufficient, and virtually eliminate our
> dependence on polluting energy
> >>> sources like coal or nuclear.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, there would be environmental impacts in
> the area -- but consider
> >>> the
> >>> environmental and economic impacts of coal
> mining, burning coal or oil,
> >>> disposing of nuclear wastes -- or engaging in
> wars in the Mideast.
> >>>
> >>> Should we try to replace 100% of the US energy
> consumption with solar?
> >>> Probably not, as there are other problems
> involved. But it could
> >>> provide
> >> a
> >>> HUGE percentage of the energy this country
> needs, with a self-built and
> >> self-
> >>> owned source of endless clean energy.
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>
> >
|