On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:12:39 -0600, The Artist Formerly Known as
Kap'n Salty <mikey666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Indeed there are, but again "the better is the enemy of the
>> good."
>
>While I love aphorisms as much as the next guy, yours doesn't really
>apply in the case of sugar cane; no new technology or infrastructure
>(relative to what would be required for the exploitation of corn) would
>be required for cane.
=============
It applies exactly.
Listen to the arguments: -- cane would be better -- lets wait.
No- prairie grass would be better lets wait. No
bio-engineered/GM plants would be better -- lets wait. And the
favorite excuse by the oil companies "we haven't pumped all the
oil out of the ground -- lets wait." These may indeed be
"better" but are preventing the implementation of the good.
There is not now, never has been, nor ever will be a perfect
"magic" solution that would supply an limitless supply of free
non-poluting fuel/energy, i.e. perpetual motion, with no
undesirable effects. The trick is to maximize the benefits for
the majority while minimizing the liabilities/drawbacks. To mix
the metaphors -- some one's ox is bound to get gored.
What is im****tant is to get infrastructure in place and large
scale pilot bio- and syn- projects running to provide expertise
for full scale implementation as required, and some minimal level
of emergency fuel supplies for critical trans****tation needs such
as emergency services and food.
While these programs/projects may indeed be expensive, it will be
orders of magnitude less expensive that paying extortionate
prices (which may involve far more than money such as blackmail
over American foreign policy) for im****ted oil, and/or fighting
WW-III over "energy."
The US federal government has a long history of financing and
promoting advancements in technology such as the canals,
railroads, aircraft, and atomic/nuclear energy. In the process
of doing so, they have made selected individuals rich, but in the
aggregate have also "promoted the general welfare."
> So why corn?
===============
#1 The US raises a lot of corn and the price has been depressed,
in many cases below the fully expensed "cost of production,"
which includes depreciation, op****tunity cost of capital, and the
value of the farmers' labor, even at minimum wage.
#2 There is much more land suitable for raising corn than raising
sugar cane.
#3 Many more people know how to raise corn [and have the
equipment] than sugar cane.
#4. We can ****ft the price sup****t and other programs for not
growing corn to growing corn and get something for that money.
#5. Although it may require expansion, we have an existing system
for handling/trans****ting large volumes of corn in most areas of
the US. Systems for trans****ting/handling sugar cane [and beets]
are much more limited, more than likely required special rail
cars.
|
