That's cause the US protects the land in which their oil reserves lay.
Most Americans also don't know that Canada is their biggest hockey puck supplier.
That's cause the US protects the land in which their oil reserves lay.
Most Americans also don't know that Canada is their biggest hockey puck supplier.
Sent from my iPadŽ
I can take the bus to work here in miami, but really miami sucks for any sort of long distance mass transportation like in new york or england or japan. If you need to get on the other side of 1-95 It'll take a while.
The US makes more ethanol than BrazilBut keep in mind that America is much bigger than Brazil and has a much larger number of vehicles. Also, Brazil has been working on this for THIRTY YEARS.
It would be great if we ran out of petrol just to get rid of those two idiotic inventions2) petroleum-based fertilizers
3) petroleum-based pesticides
If I can't have some form of petroleum on my fresh fruits and veggies, I'm not eating.
Give me petrol or give me constipation.
You obviously haven't done your research, because it's not that simple:Originally Posted by MadCow257
1) There are different grades of ethanol being produced, and these grades are different for US/Brazil. So to start off with, comparing ethanol production like that is apples vs oranges.
2) There are different ways to create ethanol. I'm sure we probably beat them in corn ethanol production. But I saw a figure of them making over 3 times the sugar cane ethanol that we do.
3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.
4) None of this matters. Brazil will take care of themselves.
A noble statement. But what are you going to do when they *do* run out? Starve? This is not something that's happening 20 years from now (see the very first link I posted in this thread).
mw
Blucast Corporation
3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.You obviously haven't done your research, because it's not that simple:
Riiighttt
Didn't say they wouldn't. I was making the point that having Brazil as a model for the US is dumb because it's not apples to apples.4) None of this matters. Brazil will take care of themselves.
I'm not sure, but I think it was total production2) There are different ways to create ethanol. I'm sure we probably beat them in corn ethanol production. But I saw a figure of them making over 3 times the sugar cane ethanol that we do.
I got really interested in ethanol distillation a couple months ago when I tried to make some. It didn't end up working out because the switch grass I planted didn't grow
where do you think electricity comes from?
Electricity in the US mainly comes from burning coal. There's a couple of other sources: nuclear, hydro (water power), solar, wind and biomass (trash, etc). Ethanol is not used in power generation because it's too expensive.
No facts? Just rolling your eyes? Electricity costs less as a fuel and the electric car requires less maintenance. Also, there are no emmissions of any kind. The only drawback is the initial conversion cost.3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.
Riiighttt
It's great to see you're doing something. Did you try again? What else are you doing?
mw
Blucast Corporation
I've decided to do something about the diminishing oil natural reserves too.
I stopped being able to pay my car loan.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Electricity in the US mainly comes from burning coal.http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.htmlAlso, there are no emmissions of any kind.
Unless there is some major solar innovation, US power will probably go to mainly nucleur sometime in the future (just my speculation, I don't have facts). Hydro and wind both are area specific, and the way the power grid works that makes wide scale use prohibitive.
Hydroelectricy is the way to go. It is extremely effecient and does not need any supplies (coal, uranium). Unfortunatly it may not be as accessible to land that is not right on a huge body of water.
Nuclear will not work, mostly because of the lack of uranium and its cost. Only First world countries will be able to afford it and the amount of uranium we have right now will only last us about 30 years at that burning rate.
Uranium is not like petrol, very little is used. The cost and expertise needed to make a reactor are quite high, but people seem pretty willing to share knowledge if it means less pollution and gas demand. There will also be multinational cooperation to mitigate the cost. As far as running costs, they're quite a bit lower then typical coal plants. Uranium itself costs less per kilo than a barrel of crude. It is also very elastic to price changes that would throw other fuel types to chaos. We really don't know how much uranium there is in the crust, but it seems limitless (I know people said that about petrol too, but it really isn't the same). I think the holdup now is reluctance to spend the cash on new plants, and no agreement over what to do with the waste...Nuclear will not work, mostly because of the lack of uranium and its cost. Only First world countries will be able to afford it and the amount of uranium we have right now will only last us about 30 years at that burning rate.
Actually, yes we have very limited uranium. I can pull up some studies if you want, the only one i remember of the top of my head is http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
Nuclear Fusion Plants will solve everything.
(Except how to make a Nuclear Fusion Plant)
To code is divine
