Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion...

Don't forget that a primary cost of producing cooking oil is the cost
of petroleum. Rising petroleum costs will drive up the cost of cooking
oil. It is already subsidized. Same is true for ethanol. You are a
scientist. Where is your skepticism?

Keep dreaming. You and Archer-Daniels-Midland.
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

wrote:
> Don't forget that a primary cost of producing cooking oil is the cost
> of petroleum. Rising petroleum costs will drive up the cost of cooking
> oil. It is already subsidized. Same is true for ethanol. You are a
> scientist. Where is your skepticism?
>
> Keep dreaming. You and Archer-Daniels-Midland.
>

Which is worse: giving money directly to oil companies when buying
gasoline or to agricultural corporations when purchasing blended fuel?
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, wrote:

> Don't forget that a primary cost of producing cooking oil is the cost
> of petroleum. Rising petroleum costs will drive up the cost of cooking
> oil. It is already subsidized. Same is true for ethanol. You are a
> scientist. Where is your skepticism?
>
> Keep dreaming. You and Archer-Daniels-Midland.
>

Yeah, but cooking oil, being an oil anyway, would now be _grown_. So if we
use less petroleum and more "cooking oil" (or a derivative[renewable
energy source]) instead, then we will still acheive a practical and
meritable end: getting off non-renewable energy sources and keep more
money at home instead of giving it to the Arabs.

The world makes progress throught dreams. ADM may just become the next
monopoly.
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

You have to prove that it uses less petroleum, which is debatable.
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

At present (so I have read) 1/5 of the world's animal life is supported
by the Haber process. It is not a natural solar-fueled cycle.

Honestly, I don't know an answer other than conservation. I have
absolutely nothing against chemists trying to push bio-fuel processes
past break-even. But you can do that in the lab, without pouring huge
amounts of money and fossil water down the drain.
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, DK wrote:

> In article , Straydog wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, wrote:
>>
>>> Don't forget that a primary cost of producing cooking oil is the cost
>>> of petroleum. Rising petroleum costs will drive up the cost of cooking
>>> oil. It is already subsidized. Same is true for ethanol. You are a
>>> scientist. Where is your skepticism?
>>>
>>> Keep dreaming. You and Archer-Daniels-Midland.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but cooking oil, being an oil anyway, would now be _grown_. So if we
>> use less petroleum and more "cooking oil" (or a derivative[renewable
>> energy source]) instead, then we will still acheive a practical and
>> meritable end: getting off non-renewable energy sources and keep more
>> money at home instead of giving it to the Arabs.
>>
>> The world makes progress throught dreams. ADM may just become the next
>> monopoly.
>
> Seems like next you gonna propose the all new and working
> perpetuum mobile scheme.

Plant (and animal) life on this planet probably represent the most
"perpetuum" motion phenomenon besides all the non-living matter and energy
in the universe. Biological life, with its endless cycles, driven
ultimately by sunlight, all the cycles (carbon, nitrogen, oxygent, etc.),
should be hooked into. Petroleum: non-renewable. Once its gone, its gone.
If there are going to be people, who want to drive cars that consume
irreversibley, then a day will come when they will stop running. What will
the human race do? Read Jarad Diamond's "Collapse"!

>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, DK wrote:

> In article , BMJ wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Don't forget that a primary cost of producing cooking oil is the cost
>>> of petroleum. Rising petroleum costs will drive up the cost of cooking
>>> oil. It is already subsidized. Same is true for ethanol. You are a
>>> scientist. Where is your skepticism?
>>>
>>> Keep dreaming. You and Archer-Daniels-Midland.
>>>
>>
>> Which is worse: giving money directly to oil companies when buying
>> gasoline or to agricultural corporations when purchasing blended fuel?
>
> The latter. Because you end up paying up twice for the same thing
> and in the process you wreck even more environment.

How do you figure that?

> Nukes, nukes are the only viable alternative.

You're going to have a nuclear reactor in the trunk of your car?

And, you're going to contribute to the radioactivation of the planet?
Transuranic elements: the most chemically toxic elements of all?

Hopefully, controlled
> thermonuclear comes along in the next 50ish years...

For the past 50 years, it sure has not gone anywhere and the bright boys
don't even have a practical geometry on paper. The best brains think, as
of the last paper I read, that CTR power plants will -- if they can be
built at all -- have to be at least $500 billion installations. Beautiful
terrorist target.

But even
> without it, nuclear beats biodiesel scam any time.

You want nuclear, go to India. W is going to build them there, instead of
here. Last time I read, most of the current US reactors are being pushed
beyond their original design lifetime (after which they are supposed to be
mothballed [and no one has any budget money to do the mothballing, thus,
the actual total cost per kWhr is still rising]). We'd be better off with
coal, solar, wind, tides. No waste. No radioactivity. Low complexity. No
safety issues. All technical issues well understood.

> DK
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

DK wrote:
> In article , BMJ wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't forget that a primary cost of producing cooking oil is the cost
>>>of petroleum. Rising petroleum costs will drive up the cost of cooking
>>>oil. It is already subsidized. Same is true for ethanol. You are a
>>>scientist. Where is your skepticism?
>>>
>>>Keep dreaming. You and Archer-Daniels-Midland.
>>>
>>
>>Which is worse: giving money directly to oil companies when buying
>>gasoline or to agricultural corporations when purchasing blended fuel?
>
>
> The latter. Because you end up paying up twice for the same thing
> and in the process you wreck even more environment.

There's no proof that the latter happens when one uses biofuels. I grew
up with the oil industry and I also worked in it. I know what it can
do. It wouldn't be a bit surprised if the anti-biofuel information
that's floating around is oil industry propaganda.

>
> Nukes, nukes are the only viable alternative. Hopefully, controlled
> thermonuclear comes along in the next 50ish years... But even
> without it, nuclear beats biodiesel scam any time.

A mate of mine worked at a nuclear research facility and he is
completely unconvinced about its viability. For one thing, the issue of
disposal of spent fuel has never been properly addressed, despite all
the noise about storage facilities such as Yucca mountain.

Secondly, the construction of a nuclear power plant can take well over
ten years from the intial proposal to when it's commissioned. There are
more regulatory requirements for those types of generating stations than
there are with conventional ones. The construction time is also
considerably longer. Because of that, the market for the power produced
by such a station might not exist by the time the transmission line is
finally starts carrying current.

In paper written shortly before his death, appearing in abridged form in
the March 10, 2006 issue of "Science", William E. Parkins, who worked on
the separation of uranium, outlined many of the potential difficulties
posed by nuclear fusion generating stations. His conclusion was that it
would be impractical for producing electricity.

The time for adopting renewable energy, whether it is wind,
photovoltaics, or biofuel, is overdue.

>
> DK
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

Straydog wrote:

<snip>

>> Seems like next you gonna propose the all new and working
>> perpetuum mobile scheme.
>
>
> Plant (and animal) life on this planet probably represent the most
> "perpetuum" motion phenomenon besides all the non-living matter and
> energy in the universe. Biological life, with its endless cycles, driven
> ultimately by sunlight, all the cycles (carbon, nitrogen, oxygent,
> etc.), should be hooked into. Petroleum: non-renewable. Once its gone,
> its gone. If there are going to be people, who want to drive cars that
> consume irreversibley, then a day will come when they will stop running.
> What will the human race do? Read Jarad Diamond's "Collapse"!
>
>>

That's one reason I ride my bike. It's cheap, doesn't consume any
fossil fuel, doesn't pollute, and I get exercise. What's not to like
about it?
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

And fertilizer, which you have to explore for. And a tractor that you
pour fuel into, that you have to explore for. And a factory that turns
it into biofuel, which itself runs on fuel and electricity...

And a subsidy.

Now if you show me a biofuel farm that operates entirely on the fuel
that it produces internally, with enough surplus to sell, then we're
talking business.

If you don't think that farming takes time and money, I'd like you to
meet some of my farmer friends.
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion... 

It was a Scientific American article sometime in the last decade, on
the "global nitrogen cycle." I don't remember the exact details, but
the implication was that sustaining the human population at present
levels may require more nitrogen than can be obtained by natural means.

I don't remember if it was before or after Scientific American turned
to rubbish.
 >> Stay informed about: Cooking oil at $5.50/gallon at Food Lion...