> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jim Sharkey
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:08 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Take that, Iowa!!
>
>
> I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all,
> but I found it
On 12 Jan 2008, at 00:10, Dave Land wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
>> Lance A. Brown wrote:
>>>
This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and the new
crop
grows into that land, then this would have no positive impact in
the
On 12/01/2008, at 6:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>>
> You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now.
> There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-)
Hasn't it got rainforest on it?
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin
On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Lance A. Brown wrote:
>>
>>> This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and the new
>>> crop
>>> grows into that land, then this would have no positive impact in the
>>> food price. The reverse would even be more likely, since if
At 02:16 PM Friday 1/11/2008, Jim Sharkey wrote:
>Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> >I, too, have issues with all those cellulouses who
> yakity-yak >constantly, oblivious of where they are driving . . .
>
>Hang up and ferment, you cellulouses! We're having an energy crisis
>here!
>
>Oh, the costs of a
Trent Shipley wrote:
> How much private land is there that could be converted from lower yield to
> cellulose production? Could ex-farms on the Montana and Dakota prairies be
> put back into production as cellulose ranches? (In AZ we can grow agave on
> some private ranch land.)
I dunno. We
On Friday 2008-01-11 12:04, Jim Sharkey wrote:
> Lance A. Brown wrote:
> >Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for
> >other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits.
>
> To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's
> grass; it doesn't require nea
On Friday 2008-01-11 12:04, Jim Sharkey wrote:
> Lance A. Brown wrote:
> >Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for
> >other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits.
>
> To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's
> grass; it doesn't require nea
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
>I, too, have issues with all those cellulouses who yakity-yak >constantly,
>oblivious of where they are driving . . .
Hang up and ferment, you cellulouses! We're having an energy crisis
here!
Oh, the costs of an extra "u." :-(
Jim
__
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>>Unused land suitable for corn or sugarcane?
>>
>
> You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now.
> There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-)
Yer right. I didn't. Assumption has once again worked against me. :-)
--[Lance]
--
Celebrate The Circle
At 01:04 PM Friday 1/11/2008, Jim Sharkey wrote:
>Lance A. Brown wrote:
> >Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for
> >other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits.
>
>To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's
>grass; it doesn't require nea
Lance A. Brown wrote:
>
>> This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and
>> the new crop grows into that land, then this would have no positive
>> impact in the food price. The reverse would even be more likely,
>> since if it becomes not viable to turn the food crop into fuel,
>> the
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
> Lance A. Brown wrote:
>> Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for
>> other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits.
>
> To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's
> grass; it doesn't require nearl
Lance A. Brown wrote:
>Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for
>other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits.
To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's
grass; it doesn't require nearly the same kind of care that more
traditional food cr
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and
> the new crop grows into that land, then this would have no positive
> impact in the food price. The reverse would even be more likely,
> since if it becomes not viable to turn the food crop into fuel,
> the new cr
On Jan 4, 2008 8:10 PM, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> > Does it filter spam before it checks the users filters? I set up a Brin-l
> > label and filter it using the to: address. I would hope it filters to my
> > label _before_ it send
Lance A. Brown wrote:
>
>> The problem with corn is that it produces a lower energy ethanol.
>> Sugarcane *is* much better in that regard.
>> But why are you worried about sugarcane? We don't use it all that much
>> in the US, even for making sugar. Last I heard, sugar beets was the
>> big resou
On 11/01/2008, at 10:39 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
> Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all,
>> but I found it interesting:
>>
>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn
>>
>> _Scientific America
Robert Seeberger said the following on 1/10/2008 8:56 PM:
> The problem with corn is that it produces a lower energy ethanol.
> Sugarcane *is* much better in that regard.
> But why are you worried about sugarcane? We don't use it all that much
> in the US, even for making sugar. Last I heard, sug
Julia Thompson wrote:
>1) Where do you order Dublin Dr. Pepper?
I just order it from here:
http://www.dublindrpepper.com/
>2) Mexican Coke.
I've heard its praises sung before, but I'm in NJ, so...
>Some high-end US soda bottlers are making their stuff with cane
>sugar.
They did an article
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
> Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
>> Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>> _Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the
>>> potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool
>>> stuff, I think.
>
>> But still less efficient t
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
>Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>_Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the
>> potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool
>>stuff, I think.
>But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P
Probably true, but I'd wager grass i
On 1/10/2008 11:09:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 06:13 PM Thursday 1/10/2008, Lance A. Brown wrote:
>
>
>
> >Perhaps. The use of corn to produce ethanol is already driving the
> >cost
> >of corn higher, impacting food costs already[1]. I
> don't think we want
> >to u
G. D. Akin wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of Gotham Writers'
> Workshop? How about any other on-line workshops?
I've been amici (inactive lurker) with Critters Workshop
(http://www.critters.org/) for a while and was semi-active for a few
months. It's focused around
24 matches
Mail list logo
