Can any 'Green' energy top gasoline?

where the hell are you from? There is hardly a kernel of corn grown in Iowa, Indiana or Illinois that is edible. Food? All three states could be wiped out and you wouldn't notice anything except high fructose corn syrup would be in short supply.

Some of the corn goes into high fructose corn syrup (which is a key ingredient in our nations manufactured food industry). A good portion is used as feed for other food (all those signs promoting corn-fed beef are a symbol of this).

Here are the figures - "In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage (AgMRC)."

The real problem with corn-based ethanol is that it takes more energy to create a gallon then the energy put out by the fuel, and the total full-production cycle GHG emissions are greater than when using petroleum products.

It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/

"In 2014, the U.S. will use almost 5 billion bushels of corn to produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year, so the amount of corn used to make that 13 billion gallons of ethanol will not feed the almost 500 million people it was feeding in 2000. This is the entire population of the Western Hemisphere outside of the United States.

In 2007, the global price of corn doubled as a result of an explosion in ethanol production in the U.S. Because corn is the most common animal feed and has many other uses in the food industry, the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, corn-based sweeteners and cereals increased as well. World grain reserves dwindled to less than two months, the lowest level in over 30 years."
 
Last edited:
Who wins and loses under Obama's stricter power plant limits
http://www.wral.com/who-wins-and-loses-under-obama-s-stricter-power-plant-limits/14808023/

The Losers:
  • YOUR POWER BILL
  • NATURAL GAS
  • ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Yes, that is right, Obama's energy initiative kills off energy efficiency promotion while killing the average family with power bills that will double according to the utility industry. A reasonable shift to use natural gas over coal in the power grid is no longer supported.

All of this while not spending a dime to improve the nation's power grid to support distributed renewable electrical sources - no actions on micro-grid, net metering, or distribution enhancements. Only a mandate to use renewables; this is an example of a completely worthless brain-dead energy policy.
The very same people who support the destruction of coal fired plants also block any implementation of nuclear power plants which are the most efficient, safest and cleanest energy we have. Cleaner than coal for sure. Cleaner and more efficient than solar. Much more efficient than wind. Of course these same retards base their anti nuclear position on a movie from the 70's which was based on mis-information and lies.
Again, as I continue to post where relevant, watch Pandora's Promise on NetFlix. Today's nuclear ain't your grandpas nuke plant. Educate yourselves and demand the change before the leftists have us in the energy stone age.
 

I very much doubt that in 5 years 50% of auto production will be electric - For this to happen these automobiles would have to be in the design and planning stages now, and they are not.

I can't see in 10 years that you'll pay a fine to drive an internal combustion engine when our own federal government believes that over 98% of the vehicles on the road 10 years from now will be gas/diesel based still.
 
The left has no energy policy per say. They have a levy fines, dismantle what we have, try and level the world playing field so that we're all equally poor energy policy policy. The chosen few will of course be exempted from the burdens we surfs will endure. Why so much support for these idiotic ideas? Problem is every commoner leftist thinks they're going to be in the chosen few group. Very delusional.
 
"Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours"

The EM Drive was developed by the British inventor Roger Shawyer nearly 15 years ago but was ridiculed at the time as being scientifically impossible.

It produces thrust by using solar power to generate multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an enclosed chamber. This means that until something fails or wears down, theoretically the engine could keep running forever without the need for rocket fuel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...orks-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html

free-indifferent-smileys-959.gif
 
"Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours"

The EM Drive was developed by the British inventor Roger Shawyer nearly 15 years ago but was ridiculed at the time as being scientifically impossible.

It produces thrust by using solar power to generate multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an enclosed chamber. This means that until something fails or wears down, theoretically the engine could keep running forever without the need for rocket fuel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...orks-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html

free-indifferent-smileys-959.gif

The science behind EM also plays into proposals to collect solar energy in space using satellites and beam it down to the surface of the earth using concentrated microwaves.
 
Back
Top