There are currently new and efficient energy programs in the works. These alternative energy programs hold the answer to our dependency on foreign oil, and yet the major news media has not mentioned them, and our elected official have chosen to ignore them!.
I have watched the major reporting of ethanol fuel being an answer, but lately, those who are intelligent have already figured out that the amount of energy used to produce it makes ethanol nothing more than a pipe dream and a boom to major corn producers.
The answers are right under our noses, but no one can see them due to partisan reporting by the major networks who only provide small sound bites every evening for 30 minutes. And sadly, most of America watches these news casts as their only source of information.
There are currently two companies working together that have provided solutions to make the “electric automobile” a very viable and reliable means of transportation. These companies have made the “electric car” a reality with the ability to travel up to 300 miles at highway speeds, charge quickly, and the new style batteries have a long life span and do not utilize the polluting lead acid type of battery! They are currently building small SUV vehicles for major companies in California that require fleets of vehicles for daily operations. These vehicles have passed many trials and they meet California emission standards as well as federal safety standards But has this company been mentioned by the major networks? NO
Another company has started building their first operating plant in Mississippi. It is designed to utilize the state’s vast supply of low-rank coal reserves by converting them into green fuel, a new form of coal-based, environmentally friendly, low-cost, alternative fuel. Has the major networks covered this story? NO!
Not only has this “green fuel” technology been kept from the public, our illustrious elected officials in the Senate recently failed to pass a major bill. On Tuesday, June 19. The United States Senate voted on two separate Coal-to-Liquid amendments to the Senate version of the Clean Energy Act of 2024. The amendments were offered by Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT).
The Bunning amendment was designed to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve to invest in alternative energy. Likewise, the Tester amendment supported coal-to-liquid technology and also addressed America's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy.
But alas, The two amendments failed to pass the Senate by a vote of 39 to 55 and 33 to 61 respectively, once again ignoring the solutions and focusing on the problems.
If America is to advance and solve our energy problems then perhaps we citizens would be better off if we “clean house” by removing the incumbents and replacing all of them with new thinking and intellectual people who hold office to serve our country! Unlike those currently serving to advance there own agendas and ignore their children’s future!
Why can't we utilize more nuclear power, drill for more oil, use wind when it is windy and burn coal?
http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/liquidcoal/
processing coal to liquid releases 2 to 3 time more co2 then processing the same amount of gasoline.
thats just making the fuel, not burning it.
Electric autos still need more advanced battries. li-ion have a chance to go into thermal runaway. of course that starts a fire that can't be stopped until it completly discharges. and the larger the battery, the better the chance to go into thermal runaway.
For those of you who don't know about thermal runaway. It's been around a lot longer the li-ion batteries. It also happens in IC circuits. The heat in a circuit has a critical threshold, once past that the heat lessens resistance in the circuit. which causes more current to pass, which generates more heat... so on, so forth. till it goes pop, or up in flames.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/NPR_Oil_Shale_Program.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/
Processing the coal into liquid is the problem not the burning of the liquid. In fact the liquid is cleaner than gas. Alot of the coal we have is clean coal. Surely if we can have space stations, hubbel telescopes, mars trips, space stations and the likes, then we can surely come up with a clean conversion. Tar oil and shale oil are super abundant in the US. The vast extent of U.S. oil shale resources, amounts to more than 2 trillion barrels.
Tar Sands
By 2024, oil sands production is expected to represent 50% of Canada's total ... The deposits of oil sands (oil shale) in the United States are massive. ...
Commercializing the vast oil shale resources would complement the mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by measurably adding to the country's energy resource base. Addition of shale oil to the country's proved oil reserves could occur in a manner similar to the addition of 175 billion barrels of oil from Alberta tar sands to Canada's proved oil reserves. As a result of the commercial success, oil from tar sand production now exceeds one million barrels per day. Oil shale in the United States, which is as rich as tar sand, could similarly be developed and become a vital component in America's future energy security.
The pros of using gasoline from coal:
We have more coal in reserves than we do oil.
These reserves are spread more evenly around the world.
The fuel that could be obtained from turning solid coal to a liquid energy source could be used to power vehicles, heat homes and run factories with very mild modification to existing systems.
Road trials in over-congested European capitals have found that coal-powered vehicles also result in a better air quality, because coal/gas produces less tailpipe emissions. U.S. studies have shown that particulate emissions can actually be reduced up to 75 percent (as opposed to traditional diesel) and nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by as much as 60 percent (source: U.S. Department of Energy research).
Coal gasification can be used as a way to reclaim decades of old coal waste piles and secondary sources that are not really profitable for conventional uses.
While the fuel source and the means to create it are still carbon-base and do still produce greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions, we do know how to take them out of the process before they do any damage.
The devil is in the details. Mining pollutes aquifers. sometimes kills miners, and sometimes bulldozes landscapes. The regulation needed to control that in the face of government corruption does not look effective.
Is that tar sands million bbl/day net or gross? In any case, the environmental effects of current consumption, 20.7 million bbl/day seem impossible to calculate.
I am frankly encourage by all the young men now playing video games rather then driving around at high speed in high gas consumption muscle cars.
But to be sure, there is a lot of neurotic denial of the facts going on.