Comments on: Berkshire Hathaway 2007: Charlie Munger on Ethanol

By: sam

sam — Wed, 09 May 2007 22:29:17 +0000

Dr Mike nowhere have I seen anyone use ethanol for their cars in argentina. However many people convert their cars cheaply to use compressed natural gas that doesnt have a far range but is much cheaper…and anyways you can just switch back to your gas tank when you run out of natural gas! Ethanol is one of the options in brazil for fuel, but again most taxis ive seen there still use compressed natural gas.

By: serici

serici — Mon, 07 May 2007 20:14:58 +0000

Corn-based ethanol is not the only alternative. Ethanol derived from cellulose is on the horizon, via the help of bacteria (more specifically, bacterial enzymes). The biggest hurdle for that is maintaining colonies large enough to meet energy needs, but will probably be overcome long-term. Cellulose-derived ethanol eliminates the argument of production inefficiencies, mainly since its method relies on plant material that would be discarded anyway.

And ethanol being combustion inefficient? That just because it’s being used in engines it was never originally designed for. Given time, that obstacle can be overcome too.

By: vijay keshavlal

vijay keshavlal — Mon, 07 May 2007 18:08:59 +0000

DrMike does not seem to realize that other countries use sugarcane to produce ethanol which actually does pass the math test. of course the us house and senate have immediately put massive tarrifs on the importing of sugarcane given the Iowa caucuses and the importance of arcer daniel midlands…. the general argument is better to be hostage to Iowa and archer daniel rather than the middle east

By: drmike

drmike — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:28:53 +0000

Maybe Charlie Munger should step up and see how other countries run their programs. Just to write the idea off like he does while other countries like Argentina have extensive programs in place just shows an extreme lack of understanding.

By: Russ Brown

Russ Brown — Sun, 06 May 2007 16:27:34 +0000

The usually-ignored “sticker” is that a 1.06 net energy value (per USDA, w/o coproduct credits) implies a 17-fold multiplier for cropland requirements.

The United States could not produce more than 1% “new” energy if all corn production were dedicated to pursuit of the subsidy.

russ

By: Ultimate 2007 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting Guide - Fat Pitch Financials

Ultimate 2007 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting Guide - Fat Pitch Financials — Sun, 06 May 2007 13:31:57 +0000

[...] Berkshire Hathaway 2007: Charlie Munger on Ethanol – ValueSeeker.Net [...]