And it appears - at least in California http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy/pdf/MC/CheeseButterPricesvsCAsales.pdf
That the price of a pound of cheese (cheddar) has only increased 25% from $1.53 lb. to $1.92 between 2005 and 2007 and like milk is now on the decrease in price.
[quote=“Cdangel0, post:61, topic:2254”]
And it appears - at least in California http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy/pdf/MC/CheeseButterPricesvsCAsales.pdf
That the price of a pound of cheese (cheddar) has only increased 25% from $1.53 lb. to $1.92 between 2005 and 2007 and like milk is now on the decrease in price.[/quote]
Haha, my bad. Yes, 46% inflation is not a 146% increase!
Still, 46% inflation is not the 2-3% number you were claiming. There has never been food inflation like this in United States history, including the Great Depression. The poor, poor dairy farmers who are federally subsidized in the first place are going to end up with food prices safely over their cost of living increases.
It’s like when they raise oil from $25 a barrel to $100 a barrel then drop it down to $75 a barrel and tell you to be happy that prices have come back down.
[quote=“RCA, post:62, topic:2254”]
[Still, 46% inflation is not the 2-3% number you were claiming. [/quote]
I haven’t claimed anything ;D
Unfortunately the over-all economy has grown significantly beyond 2-3 % over the last several years. The question remains to be answered what can WE do to correct, inhibit, prevent it from continuing?
[quote=“Cdangel0, post:63, topic:2254”]
[quote=“RCA, post:62, topic:2254”]
[Still, 46% inflation is not the 2-3% number you were claiming. [/quote]
I haven’t claimed anything ;D
Unfortunately the over-all economy has grown significantly beyond 2-3 % over the last several years. The question remains to be answered what can WE do to correct, inhibit, prevent it from continuing?[/quote]
I’ve started drinking soy milk. haha
well, In my licensed Driving lifetime, a gallon of gas has gone from 22 cents a gallon to near a high of $4.00 a gallon and currently at $2.60 a gallon. welllll, thats about a 12 fold increase in the price of fuel today! or 1200%. and still going up. and it’s still running out, no matter how fast we try to produce the remaining amount in the ground. supply is going down hill, shortly.
We get 2.7 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. The current forcast USA corn harvest is 13 billion bushels for this year. It takes 1.50 gallons of ethanol to equal the BTUs of a gallon of oil. we use 20 million barrels of oil a day in the USA or the equivalent to 30 million barrels of ethanol per day. But our total corn harvest could only produce about 2.28 million barrels of corn ethanol per day. or the equivalent of 1.5 MBPD of oil. but we use 20 million barrels per day. or less than 8 % of our urrent oil energy needs. i guess we just have to drive only 1 out of 9 miles per day and walk the rest.
grain ethanol wont do it for us. we use too much.
But we still have lots of sludge to get rid of or convert to oil.
I’d personally like to know what the holdup is with cold fusion. I remember reading about the first successful lab experiments back in the early 90’s. All we need to do is heat hydrogen in a magnetic field and we have infinite clean energy. It’s what the sun does.
why make it out of ethanol corn?
I'd personally like to know what the holdup is with cold fusion. I remember reading about the first successful lab experiments back in the early 90's. All we need to do is heat hydrogen in a magnetic field and we have infinite clean energy. It's what the sun does.
They were fradulent. Kind of. Depends on your perpective. Most consider the results to be fradulent, some say incompetence. Either way, it never happened. Kind of like all the hub bub about the discovery of a carbon base replacement for the transistor.
cold fusion might have been a failure, but there’s a massive fusion reactor being built in france.
there's a massive fusion reactor being built in france.
cool link, but unless im missing something, they arent building a reactor. what they are building is a research and development lab with a goal of creating a “demo” power plant down the road. fusion is still theoretical becuase we can not replicate the conditions on earth required for fusion on a large scale and if we could, it would consume more energy than it would provide. thats what the whole Q>= 10 thing is about on the link you provided. at this point, unless there has been great advancements since ive stopped following these things so closely, fusion is about 90% theory and 10% application. im not surprised at all to see something like this in France. they are a very foward thinking nation where the sciences are concerned and currently generate 75% of their power from nuclear fission. not to mention that i would imagine they are counting on results from experiements at the Large Hadron Collider conviently located down the road to further their own devlopment of fusion as an energy source. all the benefits of fission with none of the waste. definitely a solution worth pursuing. however, call me old school or paranoid but id rather live near a steam turbine based solar power plant than a fusion plant, radioactive waste or not ;D
boy, this thread has come full circle for me ;D i started talking about how useless my physics degree was and now looking at me, putting all that book learnen to work!!! >LOL<
[quote=“logans_daddy, post:70, topic:2254”]
there's a massive fusion reactor being built in france.
cool link, but unless im missing something, they arent building a reactor. what they are building is a research and development lab with a goal of creating a “demo” power plant down the road. fusion is still theoretical becuase we can not replicate the conditions on earth required for fusion on a large scale and if we could, it would consume more energy than it would provide. thats what the whole Q>= 10 thing is about on the link you provided. at this point, unless there has been great advancements since ive stopped following these things so closely, fusion is about 90% theory and 10% application. im not surprised at all to see something like this in France. they are a very foward thinking nation where the sciences are concerned and currently generate 75% of their power from nuclear fission. not to mention that i would imagine they are counting on results from experiements at the Large Hadron Collider conviently located down the road to further their own devlopment of fusion as an energy source. all the benefits of fission with none of the waste. definitely a solution worth pursuing. however, call me old school or paranoid but id rather live near a steam turbine based solar power plant than a fusion plant, radioactive waste or not ;D
boy, this thread has come full circle for me ;D i started talking about how useless my physics degree was and now looking at me, putting all that book learnen to work!!! >LOL<[/quote]
i guess i should have been more specific. isn’t the tokamak portion of the experiment designed to begin to control the fusion process? saw a part of show on the science channel regarding this topic,very interesting
i guess i should have been more specific. isn't the tokamak portion of the experiment designed to begin to control the fusion process? saw a part of show on the science channel regarding this topic,very interesting
to be honest, i only skimmed the site, but my impression was that its R&D with the hopes/plans for a functioning demo plant. i dont think they are building a powerplant for the purposes of supplying energy to the grid or anything like that.
agreed. definitely very intersting.
Actually, hot fusion is a positive output reaction reality now. about a year ago, one of the tokamack test reactors sustained a fusion reaction long enough to yeald a slighty positve energy output. But not enough to be practical yet. just for a nano second. for a micro amount of energy.
Currently operating, and the so called new next generation passive cooled reactors are still very expensive to build and operate. But the Chinese have made break throughs in High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors, apparently solving the fuel Que-ball cladding cracking problem.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm
HTGC reactor design is inherently simple and safer. They use less enriched fuel, thus less of a nuclear terrorist hazzard. Should anything compromise the delicate pressure/vacuum gass conditions, the reactor just shuts down due to loss of moderation effect.
Of course we built the first commercial HTGC pebble bed reactor right here at Peach Bottom, Pa., about 15 miles NW of Newark, back in the 60’s it was a tiny demo plant which ran a few years and was then abondoned and dismantled. Two 1000 MW Boiling water Reactors still power our grid, there.
We should revisit, the PBR.