Business Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Oz
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
 |
|
Edward <eddien@invalid.org.uk> writes
| Quote: |
In message <rrW1CWFg85cIFwth@farmeroz.port995.com
Oz <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
That's even before they ban triazole fungicides and numerous other
pesticides. At that point everything goes into grass and gets topped
(perhaps) once a year.
I noticed a reference to that recently. As you know, I'm a non fertilizing
grazier and know next to nothing about dirt farming.
Can you elaborate on what products are proposed for the ban and the effects
these bans will have? Also, is there any scientific justification for this
action? On past experience, I suspect not:*(
|
I haven't seen the full list. It is reported in the agpress that one to
go will be the triazole fungicides. That immediately takes 30% of wheat
yields. Further that means using lower yielding more disease resistant
varieties (typ -5% to -10%), lower N usage (-10% to -20%) because the
marginal cost-per-ton is poorer. Some small savings on PK per acre, but
not per ton.
So yield loss is likely to be around:
0.7 x 0.97 x 0.85 = 0.58 say 0.6 or 40% yield loss.
That may be somewhat overstated on average but -30% seems a certainty.
So an 8.2T/Ha (66cwt/ac) yield will drop to about 6T/Ha (48cwt/ac) or
a 9.0T/ha (72cwt/ac) will drop to about 6.3 (50cwt/ac).
Note that this is typical of the better farmers in the late 70's when
many fungicides were available (including some effective triazoles). N-
rates were less in those days as crops tended to fall over.
The effect of this will turn the UK into a net imported of grains,
sticking £10-20/T onto our grain prices due haulage alone. On top of
that the whole EC will suffer similarly and this will (pretty
drastically) affect world grain prices.
--
Oz |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Derek Moody
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
In article <QpednV21dNuh1unVRVnyiQA@posted.metronet>, Stephen Temple
<URL:mailto:usenet@jftemple.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Derek Moody wrote:
Most seem to be thinking of replacement for road fuels so products are
spread up and down thw highways.
While we are burning significant quantities of oil and gas for
static uses such as power stations and building heating, it makes
sense to replace these first with biomass, keeping the oil and gas
for mobile uses. This avoids conversion losses from biomass to
liquid fuels, and retains nutrients for re-use.
|
Agreed.
| Quote: |
It seems strange to me to pick the most difficult market (biofuels)
while leaving the easy market (heating) largely untouched.
|
These are politicians, they have to impress journalists and their more
vociferous constituents. Most of these are shouting about road-fuel prices
and a negligable percentage are able to do a simple power equivalence
calculation.
Winter fuel prices won't hit the headlines before October...
| Quote: |
Of course the optimum for the static market is Combined Heat and
Power, using biomass. It is criminal that power stations (gas fired
amongst others) throw away the heat while householders have to burn
oil or gas to produce heat. They have it better organised on the
continent.
|
As you know I regard Nuclear chp as a better way to go in which case the
waste heat would most likely be used industrially but we're in the same
ballpark here.
At the least it is daft not to utilise the concentratable energy released
when converting collected biomass back to fertiliser. Whether it is worth
collecting specifically for power generation is another matter.
With a few notable, local, exceptions the whole renewable energy programme
is a waste of resources. Renewable makes sense for off-grid static use and
where incidental surpluses accrue. For grid power nuclear is, and has been
since Calder Hall first opened, the only sensible option. A hundred 2-3
reactor stations would serve the whole country indefinitely.
Cheerio,
--
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Trucker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:24:51 +0100, Oz wrote:
| Quote: |
Stephen Temple <usenet@jftemple.co.uk> writes
Derek Moody wrote:
Most seem to be thinking of replacement for road fuels so products are
spread up and down thw highways.
While we are burning significant quantities of oil and gas for
static uses such as power stations and building heating, it makes
sense to replace these first with biomass, keeping the oil and gas
for mobile uses. This avoids conversion losses from biomass to
liquid fuels, and retains nutrients for re-use.
This is absolutely true but seems to have passed HMG and US by. In
particular OSR oil gives a 300% return on total energy in and can be
substituted for oil directly in power stations (probably including jet-
engine types).
|
So you say just use the biomass as is or stop at the point where you have
extracted the oil and before you do anything fancy to make automobile
compatibility? Most power stations in US are coal or natural gas. Very
few are liquid fuels.
| Quote: |
Bioethanol is little more than break-even when processing is taken into
account.
|
What do you think of this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html
| Quote: |
It seems strange to me to pick the most difficult market (biofuels)
while leaving the easy market (heating) largely untouched.
Yes (excluding rape oil).
|
Why is rapeseed an exception?
| Quote: |
Of course the optimum for the static market is Combined Heat and
Power, using biomass. It is criminal that power stations (gas fired
amongst others) throw away the heat while householders have to burn
oil or gas to produce heat. They have it better organised on the
continent.
Indeed. Battersea power station did this to the Churchill Gdns council
house complex with a pipe under the thames.
|
I think (just guessing) that in the UK there is not a lot of "scrub" land
as there is in the USA. We have much area that is not really suitable for
growing food crops and would require massive amounts of water to have any
prayer of growing such crops. Closed bioreactor algae farms seem to be
the logical choice in that they do not lose a lot of water to evaporation
and require very little "fertilizer". The land itself is virtually free.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Edward
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
In message <$keABcGHaGdIFwX8@farmeroz.port995.com>
Oz <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Edward <eddien@invalid.org.uk> writes
In message <rrW1CWFg85cIFwth@farmeroz.port995.com
Oz <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
|
| Quote: |
The effect of this will turn the UK into a net imported of grains,
sticking £10-20/T onto our grain prices due haulage alone. On top of
that the whole EC will suffer similarly and this will (pretty
drastically) affect world grain prices.
|
So, plenty of downside:*( Where is the upside? What is the science
behind this decision?
--
Edward..
What can they know, whose talk is only of bullocks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tim Lamb
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
In message <ant090802f7fBxcK@strongarm.dereks.pad>, Derek Moody
<derek@farm-direct.co.uk> writes
snip
| Quote: |
With a few notable, local, exceptions the whole renewable energy programme
is a waste of resources. Renewable makes sense for off-grid static use and
where incidental surpluses accrue. For grid power nuclear is, and has been
since Calder Hall first opened, the only sensible option. A hundred 2-3
reactor stations would serve the whole country indefinitely.
|
A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100
years worth of U235 available and that we should find a way round the
politics of using Plutonium.
regards
--
Tim Lamb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
DK
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
In article <pan.2008.07.09.15.16.24.44960@verizon.net>, The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
Certainly looks interesting. But since companies have
zillion reasons to lie (OK, "exacerbate"), ultimately the
judgement is reserved. But if successful the technology
can probably cover something like 10% of total energy
that today comes from oil. Not too shabby. Way better
than wind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Oz
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
Edward <eddien@invalid.org.uk> writes
| Quote: |
So, plenty of downside:*( Where is the upside? What is the science behind
this decision?
|
They are removing all hazardous substances from the food chain
REGARDLESS OF RISK. Applied elsewhere this would remove all vehicles,
animals and a wide range of things (knives, stairs, beds, BBQ, frying,
roasting etc).
So the science is, well, shakey to say the very least.
--
Oz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Oz
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
| Quote: |
A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100
years worth of U235 available
|
Improbable.
| Quote: |
and that we should find a way round the
politics of using Plutonium.
|
Won;t be a problem when the lights go out (as they will).
--
Oz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Derek Moody
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
In article <cobkWnEw4RdIFwjv@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
<URL:mailto:tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
In message <ant090802f7fBxcK@strongarm.dereks.pad>, Derek Moody
derek@farm-direct.co.uk> writes
A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100
years worth of U235 available
|
Probably right at current price levels but there are a lot of slightly lower
grade ores around which will be viable as energy price rises - may well be
already in some cases. Anywhere with tin/lead/silver mines is quite likely
to have tailings that would be worth reworking before bothering to open new
mines.
| Quote: |
and that we should find a way round the
politics of using Plutonium.
|
Breeders are an obvious plus - it's aways politics (combined with ignorance)
that gets in the way of sensible nuclear development.
Cheerio,
--
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Edward
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
In message <cobkWnEw4RdIFwjv@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>
Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
In message <ant090802f7fBxcK@strongarm.dereks.pad>, Derek Moody
derek@farm-direct.co.uk> writes
snip
With a few notable, local, exceptions the whole renewable energy programme
is a waste of resources. Renewable makes sense for off-grid static use and
where incidental surpluses accrue. For grid power nuclear is, and has been
since Calder Hall first opened, the only sensible option. A hundred 2-3
reactor stations would serve the whole country indefinitely.
A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100
years worth of U235 available and that we should find a way round the
politics of using Plutonium.
regards
Back in the 70's I was topping a field on the farm in Trawsfynydd and |
there was a helicopter flying up and down with a torpedo slung
underneath. I was intrigued by the fact that, as I made my way up the
field 5 feet at a time the chopper kept pace with me passing directly
overhead each time but travelling about 5 miles as opposed to my 100
yards. I couldn't work out how he was navigating so accurately and
there was no GPS in those days I think.
Anyway, there was a piece in the local paper soon after about how it
was mapping a national uranium reserve. Govt was at pains to point
out that it was considered a strategic reserve and there were no plans
to exploit it.
--
Edward..
What can they know, whose talk is only of bullocks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:46:56 +0100, Edward
<eddien@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
In message <cobkWnEw4RdIFwjv@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk
Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <ant090802f7fBxcK@strongarm.dereks.pad>, Derek Moody
derek@farm-direct.co.uk> writes
snip
With a few notable, local, exceptions the whole renewable energy programme
is a waste of resources. Renewable makes sense for off-grid static use and
where incidental surpluses accrue. For grid power nuclear is, and has been
since Calder Hall first opened, the only sensible option. A hundred 2-3
reactor stations would serve the whole country indefinitely.
A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100
years worth of U235 available and that we should find a way round the
politics of using Plutonium.
regards
Back in the 70's I was topping a field on the farm in Trawsfynydd and
there was a helicopter flying up and down with a torpedo slung
underneath. I was intrigued by the fact that, as I made my way up the
field 5 feet at a time the chopper kept pace with me passing directly
overhead each time but travelling about 5 miles as opposed to my 100
yards. I couldn't work out how he was navigating so accurately and
there was no GPS in those days I think.
|
Perhaps he was using you as a very handy navigation marker.
| Quote: |
Anyway, there was a piece in the local paper soon after about how it
was mapping a national uranium reserve. Govt was at pains to point
out that it was considered a strategic reserve and there were no plans
to exploit it.
|
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tim Lamb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
In message <9b76aabd4f.eddien@freeuk.com>, Edward
<eddien@invalid.org.uk> writes
| Quote: |
Back in the 70's I was topping a field on the farm in Trawsfynydd and
there was a helicopter flying up and down with a torpedo slung
underneath. I was intrigued by the fact that, as I made my way up the
field 5 feet at a time the chopper kept pace with me passing directly
overhead each time but travelling about 5 miles as opposed to my 100
yards. I couldn't work out how he was navigating so accurately and
there was no GPS in those days I think.
|
Presumably the Decca Navigator system would have been available then. I
have no idea of the accuracy obtainable.
regards
--
Tim Lamb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Buddenbrooks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:oyrlU1BV3xcIFwNH@farmeroz.port995.com...
Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
| Quote: |
fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).
As often Pete is the only regular poster he has to forge headers |
pretending to be himself in infinite regression.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Buddenbrooks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics |
|
|
"Derek Moody" <derek@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant080845b49BxcK@strongarm.dereks.pad...
probably finding 'bent vets'
| Quote: |
behind every comment. Cue paranoid rant:
|
Perhaps we could use 'bent-vet' and politicians as source for biofuel ?
With 26 candidates for the last by- election there is clearly a gross
surplus of the breed and a cull is well over due. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
88 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
