Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is There an Energy Conspiracy? Where is the SOLAR power?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   


Not late to any party, I am very familiar with Tesla, he laid the foundation for how we use electricity, today. We have had the technology for many years to implement other forms of energy. He, also, allowed for other forms of energy, but he gave up those patents.


edit on 11/3/2012 by ascension211 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


You repeat the lie that ethanol could not survive without subsidies.

 


Link to where I said that? Quote me please...




I did not misunderstand subsidies apparently you do not even know what the term means.


If corn ethanol is yielding 0.9:1 energy return it has to be subsidized, yes/no?

I didn't say it was, I said much of the data and much of the practice were offering those returns. However, I also stated that current returns are 1.5:1, which requires no subsidy.

Anyway, your point is quite moot, because the subsidy for corn being lifted (which doesn't actually fully go away until december this year) is a win for everyone. The industry was an abysmal failure and we won't see the repercussions for time to come.


What the industry doesn’t want to see, however, is an end to a separate tax credit for ethanol made not from corn but non-foodstuffs like switchgrass, wood chips and even the leaves and stalks of corn.
Known as cellulosic ethanol,...

The industry earlier this month asked Congress to extend that credit, set to expire on Dec. 31. 2012, for five years but lawmakers did not act before recessing last week.
*

Ethanol producers in Brazil have seen a tariff on their product of $0.54/gallon*

Now that it's gone, (and if it stays gone) where do you see the corn-ethanol industry in the US going?

Unfortunately, it has to stay around by law:

By law, 13 billion gallons of biofuel must be produced in the US this year. The country's Renewable Fuel Standard, as the law is known, was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on imported oil.
, but if it's not profitable (no subsidies) than it is only going to increase food costs for the producers to make up for the lost revenue.*

And, as I said before, if the net-energy returns are below 0.9:1 or less, than it is technically getting subsidized no matter what (in a energy sense). Technically, it will be subsidized by the purchase of the oil products used to grow it.

So, I never said it couldn't survive without subsidies. And because it's mandated by law to exist, the chances are slim of that happening. But without that law, I wouldn't hold my breath on the industry staying afloat. Now, I've sort of said it... Maybe you will quote me on that because I didn't say anything in that regard earlier.


edit on 3-11-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Glad to see you are still able to find info graphics without actually reading, comprehending or really making an effort at participating in a thread.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I see we have a rivalry going in here. The overall point I was trying to get across was that we spend billions of dollars on useless crap. The energy problems will not fix themselves. TPTB control the use to further their own agenda. I bet those bunkers they have been building all over the world will have power. How do you suppose that will be? They wont have the electrical grid, I bet?






 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join