Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hands Sandon 
JG what are those projections for the US for 2020 and how much of that is from ethanol? I'm busy and on iPhone so if you could dig out those figures thatcwould be really helpful. Thanks in advance.
The US hasn't established a goal that I'm aware of. Several US states have though, some of which have fallen short of their goals.
Setting a specific goal is problematic. For one, advances in existing energy technology are hard to predict. Carbon capture plants are one such example. So are unanticipated discoveries of oil or natural gas, both of which have happened in just the past year, which I alluded to in a previous post.
Clearly the DOE studies point to increased reliance on existing fuels such as natural gas. "Renewable" energy is also expected to increase, but that assumes continued government subsidies without which their viability is in serious doubt. The coming years are going to see a reckoning of the US's astoundingly high debt, and the electorate may not be in the mood to continue these subsidies when other needs (Soc Sec / Medicare / Obamacare ad nauseum) become more pressing.
The closest legislation I can think of is Bush's 2007 "clean energy" Act that steals money from us and throws it at all the outfits that have popped up in response to government handouts, chasing their alleged green dreams. Such cottage industries
always arise in response to government largess - just as determining which ones are legitimate and which are fraudulent always follows. Show trials with some corrupt Congressmen going to jail alongside their CEO accomplices are the predictable result.
The bill comes close to answering your question by mandating the minimum of ethanol in motor fuel - but it only addresses "biofuels" and not corn ethanol. As I recall that was in response to some very legitimate concerns about our food supply. That's also the closest thing to a bright spot in that bill, since it mandates an increase of
sugar and cellulose based fuels, and gets away from the corn ethanol we've been using. It simply makes no sense for me to cultivate land, plant, grow, water, fertilize, etc, harvest the crops, and then refine the product into
fuel when food is expensive enough as it is.
As far as I know John Deere and Caterpillar aren't making any wind-powered combines and harvesters to farm our land. The diesel-powered-machinery intensive, ground water demanding, planting/growing/harvesting/refining process must also be taken into consideration if you're of the "green" mindset. Growing
food for fuel can't possibly be cost effective, and wouldn't exist if not for government mandates. Needless to say I think that's short-sighted. At least the bill requires moving away, if only slightly, from dependence on corn ethanol.
Food is for eating. Fuel is for burning.
As for your next link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hands Sandon
Stunning figures for clean energy in the EU by 2020. Let this be an inspiration to others, especially the nay sayers in the US, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia-
"It is very encouraging that 25 of the 27 E.U. countries intend to either exceed or meet their target, said the European wind associations policy director, Justin Wilkes.
This shows the vast majority of E.U. countries clearly understand the benefits of deploying renewable energy technologies, particularly wind power, Mr. Wilkes said.
The action plans indicated that 34 percent of the blocs electricity demand will be supplied from renewable sources by 2020."
~
http://www.ecoseed.org/en/business-a...2020-plan-weak
I'm more than a little confused since none of those quotes appear in the story you linked. In fact, it seemed rather critical:
Quote:
European Union lawmakers and renewables sector representatives criticized the European Commissions' newly released Energy 2020 communication, saying it lacks cutting edge commitments and does not provide a solid platform for renewables until mid-2011.
An outline of their demands for the commission's energy vision, which spells out plans towards as late as 2050, is expected in the following months.
Their response will mostly be on the commissions decision to shift to low-carbon technologies instead of total renewables.
"Low-carbon" seems to imply more of what's been underway for a long time: increasingly efficient methods of using the oil, gas, and coal. Existing, proven technology that already exists and improves with each passing year; not solar power beamed from massive orbiting satellites (for a mere what, 300,000 homes? You're going to need a lot of satellites). The shift to "low-carbon" or even "lower-carbon" technologies sounds more reasonable, much to the chagrin of the greenies:
Quote:
"Particularly disappointing is the absence of any pledge in the Communication to step up the share of renewable energy," said Linda McAvan, chairperson of the European Parliament socialist groups environment and climate change network.
She cited studies showing that Europe could reach the target of 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, if only the right measures are put in place.
Sure, there's no limit what could be accomplished given "the right measures" - weasel words that could mean anything, from inventing a motor that runs on electrical charge in the atmosphere. Until then it's all...
...pi in the sky.
\
but a cart heavy with food or ice or building materials might have needed two or more horsepower. Thousands of horses thus inhabited the city. This method of transportation was working fine, but it wasn't without drawbacks: A horse was expensive to maintain, it only lasted two or three years before the city's steep hills became too much for it, and it needed constant supplies of food and water. Other problems were the required removal of over a hundred tons of manure, thousands of gallons of urine, and dozens of horse carcasses. Every single day. And guess what was used to cart in and out all that feed, manure, and dead horses... more horses.
