With all due respect grossreal, I have not idea what 'hatered' you are talking about.
I usually find your posts very interesting though...
Cheers,
Investor psychology - please post your state of mind
- Thread starter HiredGoon
- Start date
With all due respect grossreal, I have not idea what 'hatered' you are talking about.
I usually find your posts very interesting though...
Cheers,
hi house keeper.
I was not point finger I was just making a point and the hatered is real people not be able to accept that .
the issue here is not if alex or anyone likes or dislikes people that he or she knows
the issue is that we all have the view if we like it or not.
and to see this
africa we all say its horrible but very little is done.
well the boys are pumping heaps into that oh so sorry place and not sure it will make it any better, but then again I am using my narrow view of what is better.
the question is mind sets and we all have them and what are you looking at at the moment
mine is china.
has been for some time and will be for alot longer.
and how it will effect our little part of this rock.
and I think it will and is not looking good.
i will put another question to you all
and this is not to inflame debate but a question all the same.
we hear that australia is a very big country and there is not alot of arible land.
well I don't agree we have alot of land that can be farmed,
the trouble is that alot of it has things on it things
like hotel, houses, roads, now what if there was a way of removing these to make way for that valuable food producing black soil.
not saying it will happen but thats the thing in the back of my head.
and yes the question was post your state of mind.
I was not point finger I was just making a point and the hatered is real people not be able to accept that .
the issue here is not if alex or anyone likes or dislikes people that he or she knows
the issue is that we all have the view if we like it or not.
and to see this
africa we all say its horrible but very little is done.
well the boys are pumping heaps into that oh so sorry place and not sure it will make it any better, but then again I am using my narrow view of what is better.
the question is mind sets and we all have them and what are you looking at at the moment
mine is china.
has been for some time and will be for alot longer.
and how it will effect our little part of this rock.
and I think it will and is not looking good.
i will put another question to you all
and this is not to inflame debate but a question all the same.
we hear that australia is a very big country and there is not alot of arible land.
well I don't agree we have alot of land that can be farmed,
the trouble is that alot of it has things on it things
like hotel, houses, roads, now what if there was a way of removing these to make way for that valuable food producing black soil.
not saying it will happen but thats the thing in the back of my head.
and yes the question was post your state of mind.
'This time it's different' - It just may be and even if the worst does not happen then no problems I am prepared.
At this stage I am not prepared to say that we aren't going to have major structural changes which will affect everything that today we take as a normal part of live.
Hopefully there will be major breakthrough which will release us from the drug that is oil and allow us to substitute another favorite drug.
I still remember the basic panic that gripped people in the 70's and this was artificially induced by OPEC. If we now to start having real shortages because supply can no longer keep up with demand then things will change very quickly.
There was a massive surge in alternatives and the start of recycling which all came out of the 70's oil shock. The alternatives then settled down as OPEC released more oil to satisfy demand and undermine the viability of any alternatives. Unfortunately the alternatives all have links big or small back to oil and until we have an alternative that has the same calorific content of oil we are caught in a ever reducing circle.
My believe is that in the near future (5 years) there will be a massive reduction in personal vehicle use. It was with this in mind that I purchase property that was within easy strolling distance of mass public transport (trains).
It might be the same psychology of projecting the current to the future that stops our society from excepting the potential inevitable and make the hard decisions for the good of all. Clueless leadership (Andrew_A) comes to mind.
Cheers
At this stage I am not prepared to say that we aren't going to have major structural changes which will affect everything that today we take as a normal part of live.
Hopefully there will be major breakthrough which will release us from the drug that is oil and allow us to substitute another favorite drug
. I still remember the basic panic that gripped people in the 70's and this was artificially induced by OPEC. If we now to start having real shortages because supply can no longer keep up with demand then things will change very quickly.
There was a massive surge in alternatives and the start of recycling which all came out of the 70's oil shock. The alternatives then settled down as OPEC released more oil to satisfy demand and undermine the viability of any alternatives. Unfortunately the alternatives all have links big or small back to oil and until we have an alternative that has the same calorific content of oil we are caught in a ever reducing circle.
My believe is that in the near future (5 years) there will be a massive reduction in personal vehicle use. It was with this in mind that I purchase property that was within easy strolling distance of mass public transport (trains).
It might be the same psychology of projecting the current to the future that stops our society from excepting the potential inevitable and make the hard decisions for the good of all. Clueless leadership (Andrew_A) comes to mind.
Cheers
Thanks for the link.
I didn't realise until recently the dependence on oil that food production has now developed.
Electricity generation can be replaced with nuclear reactors over time. Some, but not all, forms of transport can convert to electric.
But what about the fertilisers? Can they be replaced by other chemical products somehow? Does it make up a large percentage of the food production costs?
Cheers,
It may take a lot longer than 5 years. People won't give up their cars easily, but they will probably be OK to use electric cars.
I agree about purchasing investment properties near public transport though. Public transport is going to become more and more valuable as transport costs rises.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Hopefully there will be major breakthrough which will release us from the drug that is oil and allow us to substitute another favorite drug
Cheers
I reckon the major breakthrough, that would solve peak oil, global warming, and the food crisis would be a new form of unlimited clean base-load energy. I reckon that breakthrough would be nuclear fusion [not fission].
Nuclear Fusion would be unlimited energy. The energy of the sun. We need it soon. Don't know if it will happen in our lifetimes.
See ya's.
Hi TC,
I dunno, 2016 doesn't seem that far off and hopefully will be within my lifetime...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
Cheers,
Michael.
Apparently Nitrogen can be produced by methods other than using natural gas and coal. But it takes a hell of a lot of energy. It must take a lot of energy, or otherwise it would be used now.
Sounds a bit like hydrogen as a fuel source. Hydrogen is apparently the perfect fuel source to replace oil, except for one problem. It takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen can produce in a motor. So really, hydrogen is an energy transfer medium rather than a primary source of energy.
So it appears that nitrogen fertilizer is similar. It is the energy it takes to produce it that is the problem. Same with ethanol, and biodiesel.
Nitrogen fertilizer is energy. Energy for food. Or energy to make a bomb.
As my post above, the world needs a cheap, unlimited, clean energy source. Desperately.
See ya's.
Hi TC,
I dunno, 2016 doesn't seem that far off and hopefully will be within my lifetime...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
Cheers,
Michael.
Yeah, lets hope it works out eh.
See ya's.
This is what would happen on my farm next week if oil ran out tomorrow.
Firstly, I would plant half my farm to lucerne based summer pasture. Southern and western parts of Australia would plant clover based winter pastures. 3 years of legume pasture would provide enough N for 3 years of crop. So straight away, there's production halved.
Secondly, I could grow my own biodiesel. In fact, I wouldn't do it myself, I'm sure a few farmers would get together and form a co-op, and do it in bigger scale. Using round up, and zero-till, it would take just 4% of my land area using the oil-seed crops, sunflower or canola. Oops, roundup is oil based, so it's conventional cultivation. So that would take 10% of my land area to grow the bio diesel because ploughing the soil takes much more energy than spraying.
However, I'm now only farming half my land, because half my land is in legumes producing N, so I'm now down to 40% production. That's just Nitrogen. Then there is phosphorus, sulfur, potasium, zinc. All need oil in their manufacture and transport. Oh dear.
There would be no farm chemicals, as they are all oil based. So I would take a massive hit from yield from weeds and bugs. Inter-row cultivation would be necessary. That's more energy and biodiesel needed. I'm back to almost organic farming now. I would get out the old hoe, and sharpen the blade. Just a few thousand acres to do.
Problem is, with global grain production slashed, there would be no grain to feed to animals. It would all have to go to humans. So there goes the source of organic fertilizer. All human fecal and urine waist would have to be carted back to the paddocks.
More energy and biodiesel.Then the biodiesel needed to get the food into town.
There would not be much grain left in the end.
The end of oil would mean tiny permaculture plots in town and in backyards. The cities would have to disperse into the countryside and it would be back to 25 to 50% of the workforce being farmers, from say 2% today.
Australians would be OK, as we have plenty of land, but it would be untold famine and death and war in most parts of the world. Australia and New Zealand would survive. The US and Canada would too, untill they got swamped by starving refugees from the south. Europe is only just self sufficient in food now, but they would still be swamped from Asia and Africa. The Poms only grow 60% of their food now, even with oil, so no refugees would even bother crossing the channel as the Poms would have already starved.
See ya's.
Last edited:
Funny how the govt never says anything about reducing tax as POO goes up.
However, I used to think bowser price was around 45% tax, but according to the RACV calculator, it is now ~30%.
Anyone clarify?
However, I used to think bowser price was around 45% tax, but according to the RACV calculator, it is now ~30%.
Anyone clarify?
I've got a B-Double load of urea turning up at lunch time. 40 tonnes.
Urea is 46% N. The load I bought, will fill our storage. I paid $650 a tonne for it a few months ago. It is now $800 a tonne, and still rising. Urea was just $300 a tonne when oil was cheap a few years ago.
I will need to put on 250 kgs per hectare for this next wheat crop. That will be 250 times .46 equals 115 kgs of pure Nitrogen. This is how much N will be in the grain. It really takes a lot more N than that to grow a crop, but a lot is left behind in the crop residue, so I get to keep that, and it just mulches back into the soil.
So it will cost .25 times $800 a tonne for N. That's $200 a hectare.
Then there is the starter fertilizer that goes out with the seed. Phosphorus, Sulfur, Zinc and a bit more N. We don't need Potasium yet, as we still have enough, but we will need it eventually. We get a custom blend. This fertilizer has risen from $500 a tonne a few years ago to $1400 a tonne. We will put on 70 kgs per hectare, so thats another $100 a hectare costs.
$300 per hectare costs for fertilizer. Total costs could be $700 for the whole crop, so it's not quite half.
At wheat at $350 per tonne, I need to grow 2 tonnes per hectare to come out square. 350 times 2 t/h equals $700.
See ya's.
Almost half the production cost is due to fertiliser? That's huge!
Considering that transport costs will rise with higher oil prices as well, that means that food costs are likely to rise alongside oil prices.
Not good news for inflation.
Cheers,
Hi all,
I just wanted to do some rough numbers for using organic fertilizer (compost) compared to TC's costs for comparisons.
Compost typically has 0.7-1.0 % N, it is around 2 cubic metres to the tonne, and costs $25-40 per cubic metre in bulk.
Assuming the one B-double of urea is enough for 160 ha.
To get 115 kg of N per ha, you would need between ~15 tonnes of compost, 30 cubic metres. This would cost ~$950 ha and use a total of 4800 cubic metres.
As it also contains P K and lots of trace elements, no other fertilizer would need to be added.
Another cost is the transport. Instead of one B-double, you would need 30. Also the time and fuel cost of applying on the farm would be far greater. If these extra costs were only $200 per ha, then the total for being 'organic and environmentally friendly' just on $1200/ha for fertilizer.
'Environmentally friendly' ? Think of all the extra fuel used, and greenhouse emissions created by being 'organic'.
Adding 'other costs' of $400/ha and the total costs come to $1600/ha.
At wheat price of $350/tonne TC would need to have a yield of 4.57 tonnes/ha to break even.
Basically we rely totally on oil for our food.
Can anyone see where I have some numbers wrong??
bye
I just wanted to do some rough numbers for using organic fertilizer (compost) compared to TC's costs for comparisons.
Compost typically has 0.7-1.0 % N, it is around 2 cubic metres to the tonne, and costs $25-40 per cubic metre in bulk.
Assuming the one B-double of urea is enough for 160 ha.
To get 115 kg of N per ha, you would need between ~15 tonnes of compost, 30 cubic metres. This would cost ~$950 ha and use a total of 4800 cubic metres.
As it also contains P K and lots of trace elements, no other fertilizer would need to be added.
Another cost is the transport. Instead of one B-double, you would need 30. Also the time and fuel cost of applying on the farm would be far greater. If these extra costs were only $200 per ha, then the total for being 'organic and environmentally friendly' just on $1200/ha for fertilizer.
'Environmentally friendly' ? Think of all the extra fuel used, and greenhouse emissions created by being 'organic'.
Adding 'other costs' of $400/ha and the total costs come to $1600/ha.
At wheat price of $350/tonne TC would need to have a yield of 4.57 tonnes/ha to break even.
Basically we rely totally on oil for our food.
Can anyone see where I have some numbers wrong??
bye
TC, your perspective and knowledge is astounding. You need to get a consultancy role to government. They should get you to talk to the greenies and luddites.
You are a terrific communicator, and Somersoft is better for your posts.
Stanley Meyer fuel cell, looks interesting doesn't it. Would be very interested in tracking your progress if you are actually trying to build one. The potential as espouced by Stanley is enormous. Just a bit hard to take the leap of faith given its significant non-basis in conventional science.
Cheers,
Michael
hi topcropper
we have a cheap reliable energy source just alot of money to invest in it.
geotech.
by using water onto the earths core give steam and power generation.
this water the evaporates and if done in remote areas produces rain
working on 1700 ltrs of steam is produced by 1 ltr of water then the same can be worked backwards allowing for some evaporation loss thats alot of water in and water out.
now if you use sea water.
you could gain the salt
fresh water
and power generation
start up cost is the same as a normal coal pwerstation and the run costa re te same first year but then the saving kick in and well out pace a normal power station.
extracting the salt and technical problems need ironing out.
but the 673 mil into affordable housing would have seen this really kick along.
and you would have had ras that have salt problems being reduced as the salt is harvested with the rain fall as it falls.
so you take in water down stream into the plant and rain up stream that fills the land and the streams.
so its a cycle system
this lso assists in production of food as you have water where you never had it before.
you need a wholistic aproach to a problem.
I would have liked this type of idea in the budget and throw a bit of cash at this type of project.
just an idea
we have a cheap reliable energy source just alot of money to invest in it.
geotech.
by using water onto the earths core give steam and power generation.
this water the evaporates and if done in remote areas produces rain
working on 1700 ltrs of steam is produced by 1 ltr of water then the same can be worked backwards allowing for some evaporation loss thats alot of water in and water out.
now if you use sea water.
you could gain the salt
fresh water
and power generation
start up cost is the same as a normal coal pwerstation and the run costa re te same first year but then the saving kick in and well out pace a normal power station.
extracting the salt and technical problems need ironing out.
but the 673 mil into affordable housing would have seen this really kick along.
and you would have had ras that have salt problems being reduced as the salt is harvested with the rain fall as it falls.
so you take in water down stream into the plant and rain up stream that fills the land and the streams.
so its a cycle system
this lso assists in production of food as you have water where you never had it before.
you need a wholistic aproach to a problem.
I would have liked this type of idea in the budget and throw a bit of cash at this type of project.
just an idea
