But we have surplus sugar production, ethanol plants are yet to come up. Policy of increasing the ethanol blend is announced. But infrastructure is not ready. Last year's huge stockpile in godown. Farmers not paid FRP in many states.
More from Sugar
As per Niti Ayog report and planning
1500 Cr liter ethanol x Rs 60 = 90000 Cr revenue expectation per year.
Still they say it's a noise!
1500 Cr liter ethanol x Rs 60 = 90000 Cr revenue expectation per year.
Still they say it's a noise!
Sweet sugar. Many still hate commodities. Lesson: never be rigid in investment. https://t.co/lSr2CpeMMn
— Varinder Bansal \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@varinder_bansal) June 28, 2021
The other just entered into quality territory today 😜
Quality hone ke liye HIGH PE hona jaroori hai
Quality hone ke liye HIGH PE hona jaroori hai
Ethanol plants need incineration boilers
— Siddhartha Bhaiya (@sidd1307) June 29, 2021
There are only 2 major manufacturers in India
One is thermax. The other is homework \U0001f61c#valueinvesting #Investment #investing #aequitas
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x