> "There is no excuse for Oil being a raw material needed to ship food"
>
> No, there isn't. Which is why those who can are switching to gas (which,
> lo and behold, farmers can produce that themselves) and hydrogen and
> trains anyways. The only "problem" is the lag of the infrastructure,
> that is, inertia. But that wasn't the point, I see.
In brazil they already use sugar as their source of fuel. There is already
infrastructure for sugar/alcohol powered cars. Brazil uses them. The oil
companies don't want this. Anyone think an oil company wants to go out of
business
and buy all the technology from Brazil? Make brazil a rich country? Convert all
out existing oil/gas cars to sugar ones?
If we are considering the future - the ability to grow sugar and make it power
our cars, then yes, we should convert to a fuel we can "grow on a farm".
If we are naive and only in this for the short term - no. Even if we have enough
oil left for 500 Centuries, sugar is still a technically superior fuel for cars
in the city. I don't care if we have enough oil left for 1000 centuries. It's
just not as technically superior.
The infrastructure is there: it's in brazil.
Don't tell me that "but we'd have to convert all our cars and factories and that
would cost us".
So what? Upgrading your linux 2.2 kernel is going to cost you too. But if 2.6
kernel is technically superior then it's worth it. (of course, I don't know if
2.6 is technically superior, but you get the idea).
(I'm not directing this specifically at you - just something for the list/anyone
else to consider.. I think you get the idea. Don't take it as me arguing.)
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
