• Energy Charts

• Other Charts:
Select charts to show Budget Deficit Charts Challenges Charts Education Charts Employment Charts Energy Charts Federal Budget Charts Gross Domestic Product Charts Healthcare Charts Medicare and Medicaid Charts National Debt Charts Population Charts Savings Charts Social Security Charts Taxation Charts
• Actions:
  • Register
  • Log in
  •  RSS
  • Comments RSS

• Recommended Reading

13 Responses to “U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector 2007”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

1. 11
   amyc Says:
   October 29th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

   I understand from a few truckers working here in the Us say that oil drilled here is put on boats taken out to international waters and left a few days brought back in and the oil companies get to charge more for that oil then just keeping it here. What is up with that? We are wasting fuel in ships to carry oil out to charge more for it.

2. 12
   Narwhal Says:
   November 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

   ETHANOL

   Re: Comments from Bruce Barnes, Steveo, and Domite….

   First, Barnes’ enthusiasm for ethanol is way out of proportion given its limited potential and the scientific FACTS.

   First as Steveo points out there is a net energy loss for ethanol produced from MOST crops (especially corn). Steveo’s sources do not mention ethanol produced from sugar cane which is 10 (TEN) times more efficient than corn. Brazilians producers claim that there is a small net energy gain in sugar cane sourced ethanol.

   Secondly, there simply is not enough land for ethanol to make a large contribution to reducing gasoline consumption outside of the cane producing countries.

   Steveo’s point that the ethanol subsidy is a scam is absolutely true. The subsidy goes to agribusiness and not to farmers (needy or not). Moreover, production of corn for ethanol competes with food production artificially raising food prices and could lead to shortages.

   SUGGESTION 1: THE ETHANOL SUBSIDY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED IMMEDIATELY!!!

   The other side of this scam is the HUGE protective tariff on imported ethanol.

   SUGGESTION 2: THE ETHANOL SUBSIDY SHOULD BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE INTERNAL TAX IN THE MAJOR PRODUCING COUNTRY (BRAZIL). This would avoid dumping.

   Domite has some mis-information on ethanol use in Brazil; Ethanol produced from sugar cane was introduced in the 70’s to reduce use of gasoline during the Arab boycott. It was never hidden. In fact it was(is) mandated by the government with the current proportion mixed with gasoline around 20% . Perhaps Domite is referring to the practice of some dishonest gas station owners adding used industrial solvents to gasoline and water to the alcohol to cheat the user. This also happens in the US.

   For the past 4 years or so Brazilian car factories produce cars with so-called “Flex” engines which operate on and proportion of gasoline/ethanol. My Brazilian car is a Chevrolet Astra 2 ½ years old and runs just fine on any mix of gasoline or ethanol. I even have a little chart showing which fuel is more economical based on the pump prices.

   As stated above the potential for reduction of gasoline by use of sugar cane ethanol is small due to the land limitation but it should not be ignored. We should import as much as the producing countries wish to export without protective tariffs. If the energy equation is negative they (producing countries) not the US will be taking the economic loss.

   Much larger economies of gasoline use can be immediately achieved by all of YOU simply junking YOUR SUV’s (Note: I don’t have an SUV)

3. 13
   Alternative Energy in the Northwest Says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm

   [...] fossil fuels ( 41 percent from coal, and 10 percent from natural gas).  This is better than the national average in 2007, yet still shows an extreme dependence on fossil fuels that is not beneficial to the state of [...]

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.