Jones wrote:
> > We could produce more if needed; but, we already have
> surpluses and
> pay farmers not to plant crops.
>
>
> Is this still going on despite record prices for corn?
>
> If so, it weakens the "no food-grain for fuel"
> argument. That is: if we have land which is not being
> planted and is receiving subsidies instead. I would have
> thought that program would have been erased by market
> conditions.
>
> That [no food-grain for fuel argument] would probably stand
> on moral grounds, as well, and almost no rational person
> would say that we should not switch to "non-food"
> inputs, such as switchgrass or especially algae -- for the
> carbon needed to make the fuel.
>
> Which brings us back to the Dutch and what they are doing
> with their own efficient Ag. base to confront the biofuel
> situation.
>
> http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQ3sAwA4Lwa15Z-fIiZyWJejgRUg
>
> I suspect that they will probably bring this process to
> market before we can do it here.
You may be right, but isn't the Valcent-Vertigro (American) company fairly
advanced in this field? I really don't see why more attention isn't being paid
to this technology. Seems like a winner to me.
M.
