Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then I would head out to sea...kill as many whales as possible and corner the lamp oil market. With all my new found cash, I would buy up most of the southwest and drive cattle back and forth to wherever people wanted a steak. When I retired, I would invest in a buggy whip concern (huge demand re-emerges after 100 years) and watch even more cash come in....Is this a serious question? hahaha....Because if you libs ever read a history book you would know what life is going to be like if oil were to "suddenly" disappear. I especially like that lib movie where all the Mexicans "suddenly" disappear...Supposedly, us fat lazy Americans wouldn't be able to survive without cheap labor...That had to have been the most racist movie ever made...Or at least the 30 minutes of it that I watched
@KissMy: I do not understand how you can run your tractor on Bio-Diesel off of your land and still have enough land to feed the livestock/people, I mean, from what I've read on most of the websites, BioDiesel, like Ethanol is inefficient use of corn/wheat/switchgrass etc?
Also, what do you guys grow? What size tractor do yall use? We only use a f-5000 on our's, its a 65 model, only thing I hate about it is the left headlight is busted and it sucks gas terribly.
@KissMy: I do not understand how you can run your tractor on Bio-Diesel off of your land and still have enough land to feed the livestock/people, I mean, from what I've read on most of the websites, BioDiesel, like Ethanol is inefficient use of corn/wheat/switchgrass etc?
Also, what do you guys grow? What size tractor do yall use? We only use a f-5000 on our's, its a 65 model, only thing I hate about it is the left headlight is busted and it sucks gas terribly.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
@KissMy: I do not understand how you can run your tractor on Bio-Diesel off of your land and still have enough land to feed the livestock/people, I mean, from what I've read on most of the websites, BioDiesel, like Ethanol is inefficient use of corn/wheat/switchgrass etc?
Also, what do you guys grow? What size tractor do yall use? We only use a f-5000 on our's, its a 65 model, only thing I hate about it is the left headlight is busted and it sucks gas terribly.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
@KissMy: I do not understand how you can run your tractor on Bio-Diesel off of your land and still have enough land to feed the livestock/people, I mean, from what I've read on most of the websites, BioDiesel, like Ethanol is inefficient use of corn/wheat/switchgrass etc?
Also, what do you guys grow? What size tractor do yall use? We only use a f-5000 on our's, its a 65 model, only thing I hate about it is the left headlight is busted and it sucks gas terribly.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
You cannot farm with 3 gallons of fuel per acre for corn, as near as I can tell its closer to 8 gallons, which seems tiny.
Plowing 1.10 gallons of diesel
Disc harrow .45
cultivator .60
planter .50
Anhydrous applicator .65
Combine and Milo 1.60
That is a good 6 gallons per acre, most farms will cultivate or harrow more than once a season, which I eliminated just to keep the figure on the low end.
We must add the nitrogen fertilizer which is 40% of the energy per acre, that brings the total to 8 gallons of diesel per acre.
Transport to the refinery I ignored.
I also ignored processing the ethanol at the refinery.
Add the 40% loss of energy to the equation and we can see why the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.
@KissMy: I do not understand how you can run your tractor on Bio-Diesel off of your land and still have enough land to feed the livestock/people, I mean, from what I've read on most of the websites, BioDiesel, like Ethanol is inefficient use of corn/wheat/switchgrass etc?
Also, what do you guys grow? What size tractor do yall use? We only use a f-5000 on our's, its a 65 model, only thing I hate about it is the left headlight is busted and it sucks gas terribly.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
You cannot farm with 3 gallons of fuel per acre for corn, as near as I can tell its closer to 8 gallons, which seems tiny.
Plowing 1.10 gallons of diesel
Disc harrow .45
cultivator .60
planter .50
Anhydrous applicator .65
Combine and Milo 1.60
That is a good 6 gallons per acre, most farms will cultivate or harrow more than once a season, which I eliminated just to keep the figure on the low end.
We must add the nitrogen fertilizer which is 40% of the energy per acre, that brings the total to 8 gallons of diesel per acre.
Transport to the refinery I ignored.
I also ignored processing the ethanol at the refinery.
Add the 40% loss of energy to the equation and we can see why the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.
@KissMy: I do not understand how you can run your tractor on Bio-Diesel off of your land and still have enough land to feed the livestock/people, I mean, from what I've read on most of the websites, BioDiesel, like Ethanol is inefficient use of corn/wheat/switchgrass etc?
Also, what do you guys grow? What size tractor do yall use? We only use a f-5000 on our's, its a 65 model, only thing I hate about it is the left headlight is busted and it sucks gas terribly.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
J. Craig Venter said:He has already signed a contract with a major pharmaceutical firm to try and do it. BP is funding research to experiment with underground microbes that feed off coal and produce natural gas. And Exxon Mobil has committed $300 million to Venter's company to genetically enhance an algae that lives off carbon dioxide and produces an oil that can be refined into gasoline.
"So you're trying to cut down on CO2 in the atmosphere, which people believe causes global warming and also create a fuel?" Kroft asked, while touring Venter’s greenhouse, which is filled with bags of algae under study.
"The question is on the scale that it needs to be done at. You know? Facilities the size of San Francisco," Venter said.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
You cannot farm with 3 gallons of fuel per acre for corn, as near as I can tell its closer to 8 gallons, which seems tiny.
Plowing 1.10 gallons of diesel
Disc harrow .45
cultivator .60
planter .50
Anhydrous applicator .65
Combine and Milo 1.60
That is a good 6 gallons per acre, most farms will cultivate or harrow more than once a season, which I eliminated just to keep the figure on the low end.
We must add the nitrogen fertilizer which is 40% of the energy per acre, that brings the total to 8 gallons of diesel per acre.
Transport to the refinery I ignored.
I also ignored processing the ethanol at the refinery.
Add the 40% loss of energy to the equation and we can see why the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.
Where did you find the 1.10 gallons of diesel for one acre? I am sad to admit it's probably worse for my tractor in gas lol.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
You cannot farm with 3 gallons of fuel per acre for corn, as near as I can tell its closer to 8 gallons, which seems tiny.
Plowing 1.10 gallons of diesel
Disc harrow .45
cultivator .60
planter .50
Anhydrous applicator .65
Combine and Milo 1.60
That is a good 6 gallons per acre, most farms will cultivate or harrow more than once a season, which I eliminated just to keep the figure on the low end.
We must add the nitrogen fertilizer which is 40% of the energy per acre, that brings the total to 8 gallons of diesel per acre.
Transport to the refinery I ignored.
I also ignored processing the ethanol at the refinery.
Add the 40% loss of energy to the equation and we can see why the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.
In a previous post I said it was a NO-TILL Farm. That means NO Plow, Disc, Harrow, Cultivator or Anhydrous Applicator.
No-Till Planter . . . . . . . . . . . 0.35
Herbicide Spraying . . . . . . . . 0.10
Fertilizer Spraying. . . . . . . . . 0.10
Combine 1.1 beans & 1.6 corn. 1.35
Trucking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50
@KissMy: I do not understand how you can run your tractor on Bio-Diesel off of your land and still have enough land to feed the livestock/people, I mean, from what I've read on most of the websites, BioDiesel, like Ethanol is inefficient use of corn/wheat/switchgrass etc?
Also, what do you guys grow? What size tractor do yall use? We only use a f-5000 on our's, its a 65 model, only thing I hate about it is the left headlight is busted and it sucks gas terribly.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
As I recall, the MTBE issue was one of product storage and not of point-source or end-use concerns.
The reason Ethanol "won out" over MTBE is that the former is made from corn and the latter from hydrocarbons. It was Big Ag's finest hour, a lobbying coup, and one of the biggest bullshit hoodwinked pranks ever played on the American public.
Given detectable atmospheric levels of MTBE, the Lake Tahoe Basin could
have detectable amounts of MTBE in precipitation, due to the typically cool air
temperatures in the Lake Tahoe Basin (elevation 6,225 ft at lake level). Colder air
temperature markedly increases partitioning of MTBE from air to the aqueous phase
(Squillace et al., 1995) and could result in MTBE levels as high as a few μg×L-1 in
rainfall (Squillace et al., 1996a and 1996b) and thus lead to MTBE contamination of
shallow groundwater (Pankow et al., 1997, and Squillace et al, 1997). A rainwater
sampling system was readied April 1998 for collection of rain samples for VOC
analysis. Rainwater samples were obtained on June 12, 1998. Unfortunately, due to
laboratory error, the sample vials were destroyed, so that VOC testing could not be
performed. No additional rainwater samples have been obtained.
MTBE has been found in snowfall at very low levels (0.01 to 0.1 μg×L-1) in the
Denver urban area (Bruce and McMahon, 1996). On June 5, 1998 we obtained snow
samples near a Soil Conservation Service “snotel” data site located at 8,600 ft
elevation within the Heavenly Valley ski resort. Heavenly Valley is located within
several miles to the southeast and east of the urbanized areas of South Lake Tahoe
and Meyers. Prevailing winds in the area are toward the southeast and northeast, so
that Heavenly Valley is often downwind from major urban areas in the Tahoe
Basin. Snow samples were obtained and stored in accordance with methods utilized
in investigations of the Donner Lake area by the Tahoe Research Group (John
Reuter, personal communication, 1998). Samples were obtained at depths of 0.1, 1, 2,
3, and 4 ft depths below the top surface of the snow. Ground surface was
encountered at a depth of 4.4 ft below the snow surface. The snow texture was dense,
crumbly, and glazed at all depths, suggesting prior partial melting and refreezing.
There was no evident layering of the snow. Each snow sample was assayed for
MTBE, and was found to contain <0.1 μg×L-1 (detection limit).
You cannot farm with 3 gallons of fuel per acre for corn, as near as I can tell its closer to 8 gallons, which seems tiny.
Plowing 1.10 gallons of diesel
Disc harrow .45
cultivator .60
planter .50
Anhydrous applicator .65
Combine and Milo 1.60
That is a good 6 gallons per acre, most farms will cultivate or harrow more than once a season, which I eliminated just to keep the figure on the low end.
We must add the nitrogen fertilizer which is 40% of the energy per acre, that brings the total to 8 gallons of diesel per acre.
Transport to the refinery I ignored.
I also ignored processing the ethanol at the refinery.
Add the 40% loss of energy to the equation and we can see why the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.
In a previous post I said it was a NO-TILL Farm. That means NO Plow, Disc, Harrow, Cultivator or Anhydrous Applicator.
No-Till Planter . . . . . . . . . . . 0.35
Herbicide Spraying . . . . . . . . 0.10
Fertilizer Spraying. . . . . . . . . 0.10
Combine 1.1 beans & 1.6 corn. 1.35
Trucking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50
Still your not accounting for lower crop yields with no-till farming.
Also you have not accounted for the energy required for fertilizers.
No till farming for corn, never heard of that, where is it being done.
If the price of fuel triples the cost of shipping those computers from halfway across the planet becomes problematic. I can forsee, in this case, the very industries that went overseas, scurrying back because the transportation costs have become too much of a burden. So in a simplistic labor model, this might be a good thing. Of course there are other aspects that may have a negative impact too.
Absolutely not true. It takes less fuel to ship a computer from China to your door than for you to drive to work & back.
Yes. But without fuel you have other means to get to work and back. I suppose they could sail the computers over here, that would take more manpower than the super ships thsy have today. But like I said there are a lot of factors involved. If fuel prices skyrocketed the computers and all plastic products would increase drmatically too. Food prices too. Wages would have to increase or nobody could afford the products. If product does not sell nobody works to make them. Oil affects ever facet of our lives, not just fuel.
You can't believe what you read. I used to own parts of Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants. The USA raised the about same amount of corn & soy before these Bio-Fuel & Ethanol plants were installed as they do now. We also export about the same amount of feed after these plants went into production.
When grains are processed in these plants for fuels the bi-product is animal feed with the same nutritional protein value as the grain that they ate before. Each bushel will lose some weight & volume from the oil & starch that was converted to fuel but all the protein & feed value remains. It is actually beneficial to the animals to not eat all that starch & fat that caused methane gas in cows upsetting their digestion & causing them to burp & fart methane gas that is 15 times worse for the environment than CO2.
Ethanol also replaced the toxic pollutant MTBE in gasoline. The anti ethanol people just calculate that all the corn is raised just to be turned into ethanol so the energy returned on the energy invested is not very positive. The fact is we are already raising this for feed anyhow, now we just squeeze some fuel out of it using very little energy.
Fact is I can farm with about 3 gallons of fuel per acre. That acre will yield well over 100 bushel of corn. That corn will yield 300 gallon of ethanol per acre. That equals about a 100 gallons of fuel return for every gallon of fuel used to raise the corn.
As I recall, the MTBE issue was one of product storage and not of point-source or end-use concerns.
The reason Ethanol "won out" over MTBE is that the former is made from corn and the latter from hydrocarbons. It was Big Ag's finest hour, a lobbying coup, and one of the biggest bullshit hoodwinked pranks ever played on the American public.
Nice post, can you link to your source.
MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, derived from Methanol, which is derived from Methane, which is separated from Natural gas.
MTBE does not come from Oil.
MTBE in California was banned for a number of reasons to include leaking storage tanks. MTBE found its way into the water supply, through Jet skiing, boating, even cars exhaust which got washed into the environment.
MTBE did not reduce emissions, just created different emissions.
MTBE lowered milage (as ethanol does)
MTBE was expensive, (as ethanol is)
MTBE is not a hydrocarbon although it does pollute the snow.
Given detectable atmospheric levels of MTBE, the Lake Tahoe Basin could
have detectable amounts of MTBE in precipitation, due to the typically cool air
temperatures in the Lake Tahoe Basin (elevation 6,225 ft at lake level). Colder air
temperature markedly increases partitioning of MTBE from air to the aqueous phase
(Squillace et al., 1995) and could result in MTBE levels as high as a few μg×L-1 in
rainfall (Squillace et al., 1996a and 1996b) and thus lead to MTBE contamination of
shallow groundwater (Pankow et al., 1997, and Squillace et al, 1997). A rainwater
sampling system was readied April 1998 for collection of rain samples for VOC
analysis. Rainwater samples were obtained on June 12, 1998. Unfortunately, due to
laboratory error, the sample vials were destroyed, so that VOC testing could not be
performed. No additional rainwater samples have been obtained.
MTBE has been found in snowfall at very low levels (0.01 to 0.1 μg×L-1) in the
Denver urban area (Bruce and McMahon, 1996). On June 5, 1998 we obtained snow
samples near a Soil Conservation Service snotel data site located at 8,600 ft
elevation within the Heavenly Valley ski resort. Heavenly Valley is located within
several miles to the southeast and east of the urbanized areas of South Lake Tahoe
and Meyers. Prevailing winds in the area are toward the southeast and northeast, so
that Heavenly Valley is often downwind from major urban areas in the Tahoe
Basin. Snow samples were obtained and stored in accordance with methods utilized
in investigations of the Donner Lake area by the Tahoe Research Group (John
Reuter, personal communication, 1998). Samples were obtained at depths of 0.1, 1, 2,
3, and 4 ft depths below the top surface of the snow. Ground surface was
encountered at a depth of 4.4 ft below the snow surface. The snow texture was dense,
crumbly, and glazed at all depths, suggesting prior partial melting and refreezing.
There was no evident layering of the snow. Each snow sample was assayed for
MTBE, and was found to contain <0.1 μg×L-1 (detection limit).
Absolutely not true. It takes less fuel to ship a computer from China to your door than for you to drive to work & back.
Yes. But without fuel you have other means to get to work and back. I suppose they could sail the computers over here, that would take more manpower than the super ships thsy have today. But like I said there are a lot of factors involved. If fuel prices skyrocketed the computers and all plastic products would increase drmatically too. Food prices too. Wages would have to increase or nobody could afford the products. If product does not sell nobody works to make them. Oil affects ever facet of our lives, not just fuel.
Those massive cargo ships can convert to nuclear just like the military ships. So products can still arrive without oil.
Yes. But without fuel you have other means to get to work and back. I suppose they could sail the computers over here, that would take more manpower than the super ships thsy have today. But like I said there are a lot of factors involved. If fuel prices skyrocketed the computers and all plastic products would increase drmatically too. Food prices too. Wages would have to increase or nobody could afford the products. If product does not sell nobody works to make them. Oil affects ever facet of our lives, not just fuel.
Those massive cargo ships can convert to nuclear just like the military ships. So products can still arrive without oil.
We mine uranium, iron, coal without oil/fuel?
You cannot farm with 3 gallons of fuel per acre for corn, as near as I can tell its closer to 8 gallons, which seems tiny.
Plowing 1.10 gallons of diesel
Disc harrow .45
cultivator .60
planter .50
Anhydrous applicator .65
Combine and Milo 1.60
That is a good 6 gallons per acre, most farms will cultivate or harrow more than once a season, which I eliminated just to keep the figure on the low end.
We must add the nitrogen fertilizer which is 40% of the energy per acre, that brings the total to 8 gallons of diesel per acre.
Transport to the refinery I ignored.
I also ignored processing the ethanol at the refinery.
Add the 40% loss of energy to the equation and we can see why the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.
Where did you find the 1.10 gallons of diesel for one acre? I am sad to admit it's probably worse for my tractor in gas lol.
I shopped around a bit, seems awful low but I guess you just about idle in the field.
Farm Tractors - Today's Tractors - Reading Room
Estimating Farm Fuel Requirements
