Non-road diesel, thank you that?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 04/10/11, 09:03

Did67 wrote:
a) in 2011, is it reasonable to maintain such a tax niche? So an agriculture dependent on fossil fuels ???

With the consequence of having to pay the real price of food products.



I specify my paragraph, incomprehensible as it stands:

- question whether it is appropriate to maintain the zero-rating; that is to say, whether we want to encourage or discourage an agriculture dependent on fossil fuels (diesel) (depending on whether tax or tax)

- but if we question that, we must also agree to pay agricultural prices at fair value: farmers can only produce at current prices because their fuel is zero-rated ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 04/10/11, 10:42

Did67 wrote:I specify my paragraph, incomprehensible as it stands:

- question whether it is appropriate to maintain the zero-rating; that is to say, whether we want to encourage or discourage an agriculture dependent on fossil fuels (diesel) (depending on whether tax or tax)

- but if we question that, we must also agree to pay agricultural prices at fair value: farmers can only produce at current prices because their fuel is zero-rated ...

1) It is strictly impossible for 4% of the active population to produce food for 100% of the total population, and with a waste of about 1/3 of the final food, without to spit out Diesel, fertilizers and chemistry and transport : in short oil.

2) Farmers' selling prices are often at a loss because the CAP requires it, in compensation for around 2/3 of their income are subsidies. The share of fuel taxes is currently a very low item, and it would be quite secondary in the balance sheet if fuel taxes were increased.

But don't worry, it won't happen because otherwise, I know a lot of roundabouts that would receive a few cubic meters of manure every day ... and even blue ruffles re-glossed with slurry :P

@+
0 x
Image
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 08/10/11, 18:22

Definitely, on this one we will not agree ...

1) I don't want to start this debate - although it would be interesting.

I partially agree ...

But in part only: it would actually take part of the solar energy captured by the farm, to run the machines (HVB), to "produce" fertility (legumes, recycling of waste ...), to produce stimulator of natural defenses, etc ...

But it would not be the return to the Middle Ages, with 95% of the population on farms (or Pol Pot?).

Simply because technologies are there. They must be refocused on the solar energy collected (PV roof, plant fuels, biomass, etc.) ...

But there is not the question of this thread, let us not divert it.

2) No, my remark was a remark in principle: why grumble against the GNR when we have to ask another debate? That of the energy efficiency of our agriculture ... Or if you want, that of agricultural subsidies (including zero-rating - which is a tax niche).

If you want to be eco-friendly as I see this concept ...

Maybe for others, being eco-friendly is just being against it ???
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 08/10/11, 18:54

well i quite agree with your last post :P

The agri fuel ("red") was fine, no need for RNG. And the basic question is quite different: what about agricultural production without fossil fuel? How to respond to it while keeping so few people for food production?
0 x
Image
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 09/10/11, 11:18

I prefer !

There are people I respect. Disagreement is always possible with them too, but there, I found him a little violent ... or a little "stupid" we will say ...

[but you say it well: the "red" went ... to the past ... Today, the new generation of engines, more efficient, cleaner, no longer support it - as it has trouble with HVB in due to the sulfur content in particular]
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 09/10/11, 12:51

Remundo wrote:1) It is strictly impossible for 4% of the active population to produce food for 100% of the total population, and with a waste of about 1/3 of the final food, without to spit out Diesel, fertilizers and chemistry and transport : in short oil.


Not so sure !!

A recent UN study has shown that agroecology would double global agricultural capacity with ... fewer entrants!

Agroecology could double agricultural production in 10 years, according to the UN

21 March 2011 16: 46, Words Make Sense, by Napakatbra
Array. Array. Agroecology could double agricultural production in 10 years, according to the UN - LMOUS

How to "feed 9 billion human beings in 2050"? The answer is obvious, for the UN special rapporteur, Olivier De Schutter: by dropping intensive agriculture in favor of agroecology. A technique that "seeks to improve the sustainability of ecosystems by imitating nature rather than industry" ...

(...)


Continuation and debate: https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-agroecol ... 10656.html
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 09/10/11, 14:05

A recent UN study has shown that agroecology would double global agricultural capacity with ... lessinputs!

With fewer inputs, but more inputs (sic!); so the assertion of Remundo remains correct compared to its first consideration ...
In any case, as I have already had the opportunity to point out, the figure of 4% of farmers in France has absolutely no meaning that we want to give it by a totally abusive simplification.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 09/10/11, 15:41

Exact.

This has been a lot of outsourcing that has not borne its name.

Including, since this is the subject, energy outsourcing:

- "before", the soil produced x; this x was used to feed the family (not just the farmer, I mean the family) with the exception of salt, and some spices or other products, the draft animals; only the surplus was sold to feed the non-agricultural world

- today, the soil produced Y which is almost entirely sold (or its derivative if it is milk or meat); but with energy bought from TotalFinaElf, fertilizer bought from AZF (which, in the case of nitrogen fertilizers, made from nitrogen in the air, is nothing but energy fossil!) and a farmer and his family feed mainly at Carrefour ...

It is therefore obvious that comparing X to Y is quite stupid! Even if Y is 10 times X, it has nothing to do ...
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 09/10/11, 22:21

Did67 wrote above:
Today, the new generation of engines, more efficient, cleaner, no longer support it (red *) - as it has trouble with HVB due to the sulfur contents in particular.

From what I understand, GNR is imposed because the sulfur content of the FOD is incompatible with the catalysts which are fitted to the new tractors; it must be recognized that this obligation complicates the lives of those who own old machines ... it would have been desirable if the new regulations only concerned catalyzed engines.

In other countries (eg Switzerland), similar provisions exist, but with all-oil solutions: in France the choice was made to replace the sulfur, useful for the lubrication of the engine, with original fatty esters vegetable (EMAG), which poses certain practical problems (in addition to being energy nonsense).


* the red coloration is maintained in the GNR, it therefore does not distinguish the two fuels since it is a tracer for tax purposes.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6459
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 1610




by Macro » 10/10/11, 08:42

It does not complicate the use of old equipment which can work with GNR without worries. The additional financial cost is symbolic ... except if you get rolled around by changing your tank and the whole installation ... Something useless if we have properly maintained this equipment.
0 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 281 guests