[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Alleged?

The price should drop, the energy to make it is less as well as the alleged impact on the food supply.

What subsidies, direct and indirect? Are the fuel "crops" contemplated nitrogen-fixing? What is the cost of removing productive farmland from food production? What level of production is contemplated without the addition of fossil fuel fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc?

What percentage increase to the nations "supply"? A day or two of respite? As against capital investment that might have gone elsewhere in re fuel production and use? Versus farmland, equipment and the cost of money increased for a taxpayer scam?

Is there not a problem -- even the least bit of cognitive dissonance -- in understanding that a transnational corporation has only it's own interests at heart? That this is PR -- propaganda -- where the best ROI for a society is concerned, and is not done in a true cost accounting?

Alleged? Try looking at the cost of food basics, globally. The North may not give a flip for the South, or the West for the East, but commodity food prices are rising -- being pinched. Diverting farmland for extra-high cost "fuel" is nothing but a scam, before, and remains so now.

Both the above-referenced articles are little more than "investor feel good" words and phrases. I admire the use of floodgates, ha!

Might have a look, instead, at articles that may be similar, but far more promising with the idea that Moore's Law may apply to solar. Despite problems of materials acquistion, manufacture, etc, it would be welcome news to individual/familial energy independence with long term investment returns.

.

Perhaps it is a mistake for society to demand so much of it's farmland. Doesn't leave much wiggle room for instances of bad crop years either. But hey, what's more important, crapping out those extra mouths to feed (6,000,000,000 and counting) or looking at the big picture?