Solar Wind Energy Hydrogen Ethanol

Heading Into An Energy Nightmare

Russell Walker, P.E.

If the Sun and Wind are "free" why do Solar and Wind Power cost so much?  For scientific reasons, none of the most recent energy developments regarding “free” or replacement energy are or can be economical, regardless of any governmental mandates to the contrary.  Some display technical inconsistencies that seem to make their practical use border on insanity. The localities with the most “sustainable energy projects,” in most cases, have the most expensive energy costs. Maine is a good example.  The average residential cost there is about 19 c/kwh, about twice what I pay (11 c/kwh) in North Carolina, a state with no sustainable energy projects.  An article from Wikipedia entitled "Solar Power in Spain", states as follows -- "Spain is one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine." An article from Wikipedia entitled "Wind Power in Spain" states as follows -- "Spain is the world's fourth biggest producer of wind power."  A website states, 962 kwh costs 406.81 euros.  I did the conversion and that electricity in Spain costs about $ 0.50/kwh US.  Even if that number is twice any real number, the result is exorbitant and is an inhibition to manufacturing, farming and jobs in Spain.  Spain reflects the reality of Solar and Wind power, that it is extremely expensive for unreliable and variable power.   Another excellent article is

The inherently variable or unstable nature of these “clean” energy projects makes system instability and failure probable.  Electric power systems require delivery of constant voltage and frequency, day and night, wind or no wind. Anything else is failure unless we are willing to accept electricity for part of the day as in many undeveloped countries or low voltage that will burn out motors.  Our electrical power system is not a Mr. Wizard experiment or an AC Gilbert erector set using simple DC (Direct Current) motors but is a complex AC (Alternating Current) system that is also subject to capacitive and inductive effects. The more complex any system is the more subject it is to failure.

The US energy compass is pointed towards insanity is leading users into the abyss.  If  “free” or replacement energy becomes a significant energy resource, say 20% of delivered electrical power, then the electrical system will never work regardless of any governmental mandates to the contrary because the system will not be able to handle the instabilities or what electrical engineers call “transients”.

Transients mean voltage spikes, voltage drops or a phase change typically lower than 60 cycles per second.  Under voltage can cause squirrel cage induction motors to fail because they draw more amperes and consequently fail due to excessive heat generation.  Variable output, solar and windmill devices force the remainder of the system to balance the input and output. Power grid failures are inevitable due to transient instability. Overvoltage can cause lights, semiconductors and other resistive devices to prematurely decompose.  Low power frequency is also destructive to transformers that are “tuned” to 60 hertz (cycles per second) because they will heat up excessively and fail sooner.  Large transformers frequently are not stored by any utility and can take two or so years to manufacture. They are frequently manufactured overseas.

The most prominent “clean energy” examples are Wind mills, solar panels, ethanol, biofuel, geothermal and tidal turbines. They all have the same characteristics of governmental subsidies or mandates and an inability to stand alone, economically, if not technically. Typically, windmills and solar farms are included in a utility system. This way their exorbitant costs and variable behavior can be covered up in the overall operation of the greater utility electrical system. The government using taxpayer funds to support these experimental failures will only cause power generation to be more expensive harming the remainder of US manufacturing, deficit and balance of payments.  Each requires enormous capital compared to conventional generation, dependent upon extremely low-interest rates, which historically do not last. Let’s review the various modern systems for their characteristics.  Ideally, any energy source or system requires two basic characteristics, reliability including continuous supply and economic competitiveness. None of the alternative sources meets this criterion.

Tesla Motors and SolarCity (one word)

Tesla Motors and SolarCity announced a $2.6 billion stock merger on August 1, 2016.  Elton Musk's idea is that Tesla’s Lithium batteries could store the power that SolarCity’s panels have harnessed, a bet on the increasing use of solar energy.  Basically, this deal is insanity. The companies feature technologically questionable processes with dubious synergies. The two companies are mingled together, having no profits while bleeding billions of dollars of cash into a bigger cash bleeder.

I look for this merger if it takes place to be out of business in two years.

From the Internet -- For Tesla, government support is often quite direct. Right now (2017), every Tesla buyer in the US walks off the lot with a $7,500 federal tax credit, with additional credits ranging up to $25,000 depending on the state and model. End the tax credits and the electric cars will become a modern-day dinosaur.  A similar credit lets you deduct up to 30 percent of the cost of home solar panels, a tax break that has fueled the growth of Musk’s SolarCity business, which recently merged with Tesla.

I believe that budget constraints will soon make these credits a thing of the past.


There are good policy arguments for each credit — particularly the solar installations, which can play a crucial role in the larger power grid. But those federal tax breaks have been central factors in Tesla and SolarCity’s success, and both businesses will be badly damaged if the measures are revoked. With Trump and congressional Republicans eager to roll back environmental measures, it’s not hard to imagine those tax breaks coming under fire in the next budget.

Beyond the federal subsidies, Musk’s businesses have benefited from a number of local tax breaks and one-off grants, with some estimates putting the total amount of government subsidy as high as $4.5 billion. There’s also SpaceX, which relies heavily on federal contracts as well as the broader push toward privatized space flight.

WINDMILLS -- Obviously they can only produce power when the wind is blowing.  The wind may not be blowing when the greatest energy need is present. What happens then?  The system needs to be able to be augmented by other conventional power sources due to the windmills variable output. Windmills can only start to produce power when the wind is blowing above a certain minimum. Too little wind and insufficient power is generated and too much wind can destroy the windmill, which has actually happened. Windmills have serious disadvantages, without citing any figures, they have high kW and kWh costs. They can kill off migratory birds and can throw ice in the winter time in colder climates, make noise by themselves or in tandem with other windmills creating (“beat” to use a technical term) a low-frequency pulse sound. Compared to the pressurized fluid in steam turbines, atmospheric air has a low velocity and density. Consequently, in order to produce any substantial energy, the windmills must be large so as to interact with more lower density air. The generator, gears and blades of a wind turbine are placed high in the air where mechanical noise can easily be transmitted to people on the ground.  In comparison, the noise from a steam turbine and generator is contained in a heavy casing at the ground level typically inside a building. Typically wind turbines are placed on mountain tops or ridges and can be seen for long distances.  Many windmills are over 200 feet in diameter and are aesthetically unattractive. There is nothing “free” or clean about windmills.

James McCanney has proposed (2015) a "12 Meter Wing Generator".  It is still a windmill regardless of any label.  McCanney cannot get away from the satanic earth-worshiping Metric system and realize that the construction of any windmill in the United States will be an engineering project that will use English units.  Does McCanney live in France or does he live in the United States?  Maybe while he worships the earth-based metric system, he should start speaking French.  No, he lives in a scientific dream world.  Anybody can design anything, it takes engineers to build it and make things work.  McCanney's windmill is still subject to the deficiencies listed above and will be an obvious failure ab initio.

McCanney has opined that Windmills will surpass solar as an energy source.  While solar is trash at least the Sun is predictable even though the local weather may not.  The Wind is typically not predictable unless you are living in the 10 to 30-degree latitudes, both North and South, where the prevailing winds are fairly constant.    

SOLAR PANELS --  Solar panels suffer from many of the same disadvantages as windmills in that the output is variable.  They have variable output in the daytime and zero output at night. The daytime output is a function of the latitude, time of day, the orientation of the panel relative to the sun's rays, the day of the year and number and kinds of clouds, if any, in the sky.  Due to low energy flux density of the sunshine and the relatively low conversion efficiency of most panels, in the neighborhood of 20%, solar panels are located in “farms” because they frequently take up acres of space. Even if the conversion efficiency could be doubled, solar farms still represent a high dollar per kW and kWh cost.  The power from Solar Cells is Direct Current (DC).  For use in the power grid, this DC power must be sent to an inverter to produce Alternating Current (AC), another power loss and cost.

The Ivanpah Solar Plant in Nevada, for example, is the largest solar farm in the world and is producing nowhere near the promised amount of power. The power it is producing is on the market at about $200 a megawatt hour compared to about $35 for natural gas.   The plant and those like it are killing birds and causing airplane pilots glare issues. Recently, a computer failure at the plant caused part of the farm to burn itself up, because the mirrors were directed the wrong way.

Many bird deaths apparently are caused by flight through the concentrated solar flux, burning feathers and beaks, while others resulted from blunt-force trauma by crashing into mirrors — which water birds may be mistaken for a lake or pond.  All the plant seems to have done is to be a repository for taxpayers funds.  


--- from WND on the Internet.  

"WASHINGTON – The solar-energy industry has been touted for years as the environmentally safe alternative. After all, solar panels merely absorb the sun’s energy and transfer it to consumers. No oily pipelines, no obstructions to the nation’s waterways.

But it appears all is not well for fans of the industry.

Discarded solar panels, piling up around the world, are detrimental to the environment, according to a new study by Environmental Progress.

And carcinogenic.

And teratogenic.

While environmentalists have warned for decades of the hazard of nuclear power, solar panels produce 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants, warns Berkeley, California-based EP.

Discarded solar panels not only contain lead but chromium and cadmium – both of which are carcinogenic. Cadmium is present in cigarette smoke and is blamed for the development of kidney problems.

And little is being done to mitigate the environmental hazard posed by discarded solar panels.

Japan’s Environment Ministry cautioned last November that Japan has no means to safely dispose of its discarded solar panels, noting the amount of solar panel waste the nation produces annually will increase from 10,000 to 800,000 tons by 2040.

According to EP, it would take 19 years for Japan to recycle all the waste generated by 2020 alone.

Similarly, California, which leads the world in deploying solar panels, has no method set up to safely dispose of solar panel waste. Americans with solar roofs produce 30 to 60 percent more electronic waste than non-solar households.

Only Europe mandates that solar panel producers dispose of waste.

What do YOU think? Are solar panels a plus or a minus for the environment? Sound off in today’s WND poll.

There are approximately “1.4 million solar-energy installations now in use” in the United States, EP’s study reveals, many of which “are already near the end of their 25-year lifespan.”

A “solar waste crisis” looms, EP warns.

“If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km),” EP states in its study.

Solar panels came into commercial use in Europe in 1990 and ever since have been electrifying millions of households globally, bringing energy to many remote communities in less-developed countries.

Underdeveloped countries will, however, bear the brunt of the environmental damage posed by this source of “clean energy,” according to the study.

“In countries like China, India and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale,” Environmental Progress explains. “Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.”

Not only are discarded solar panels a source of chemical pollution, the creation of solar panels produces toxic waste.

In California alone from 2007 to 2011, the manufacturing of solar panels expelled “46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water,” according to a 2013 investigation by the Associated Press.

However, Dan Whitten, a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, contends EP’s study is inaccurate.

Solar panels are “mainly made up of easy-to-recycle materials that can be successful recovered and reused at the end of their useful life,” Whitten stated in an email to the National Review.

Stuart Fox, vice president of the green energy company CivicSolar, said last week that, contrary to popular belief, warmer weather does not prompt solar panels to produce more energy. In fact, the more the temperature rises, the less effective and sustainable solar panels are.

“If you take a glass solar shingle and lay it on the roof, there’s no air going behind it, so it might get a lot hotter – it might get to 140 or 160 degrees Fahrenheit,” Fox told the San Francisco Chronicle.

“Photovoltaic cells work when energy-filled photons from the sun activate electrons on the solar panels,” the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out. “The electrons go from a resting state to an excited state, and the cells capture the resulting energy. At high temperatures, the resting state of the electrons goes up. As a result, the difference between the resting state and excited state is smaller, producing less power.”

While industrial solar systems lack the capacity for large scale cooling and work less effectively when it’s hot outside, they are predominantly funded by taxpayer dollars. Residential rooftop installations receive a 30 percent federal tax credit through a subsidy called net metering. Maintaining net metering subsidies for rooftops will ultimately skyrocket power prices.

To the dismay of many environmentalists, President Trump has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and has repeatedly referred to “climate change” as a “hoax.”

The president, however, marked the middle of his administration’s technology week earlier this month by announcing he is considering positioning solar panels on the wall he wants to build between the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We are thinking of something that’s unique. The southern border – lots of sun, lots of heat. We are thinking about building a wall as a solar wall. So it creates energy. And pays for itself,” Trump said to cheers from the crowd at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I think we can make it look beautiful too. It would really look beautiful. That would be nice.”


GEOTHERMAL -- Typically hot water or steam is used as the prime energy source. The primary energy source has to flow through a heat exchanger so that a secondary process fluid can be used to provide electricity using a steam or other volatile chemical fluid turbine.  Commonly, the prime water energy source contains harsh salts and fine silica. These salts can create severe corrosion and the silica will cause erosion for any metal that comes into contact with the primary fluid. This means that hard expensive metal alloys are required.  It also means, typically, that the used (cooled) water needs to be re-injected back into the earth unless you want to have a large lake of salt-laden water on the surface. Frequently, freshwater needs to be pumped into the earth to absorb heat and create the hot water to come from the earth. Cooling the used water with its many chemicals creates possible precipitation problems with former soluble salts now precipitating, clogging the piping.  Process-wise, this situation is more complex than initially meets the eye.

If relatively clean steam is available, then it is feasible to use this system.  Iceland has many of these steam sources. There is not a smokestack to be found in the entire city of Reykjavik.  Potential geothermal facilities are only found in limited areas where earthquake fault areas such as Yellowstone National Park or the Salton Sea in California lie because they are the only areas of the United States where high-energy water sources are located.

TIDAL TURBINES -- These low head turbines are powered by the tidal variation of the ocean. Areas having the highest tides are the best candidates.  The Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Fundy are areas for possible examination due to their tides in the range of 40-50 feet. Tidal turbines require a dam which can disrupt navigation, fishing and fish culture.  In any event, the one advantage is that seawater is about 64 pounds per cubic foot and much energy can be stored in water for this reason. Unfortunately, seawater is corrosive and metallurgy is of prime consideration. While the power generation of sea tidal turbines is variable, at least it is predictable, unlike solar and windmills. Tidal generation is a potentially microscopic generation of power. It will never be a major ingredient of power generation due to the severe limits of potential locations.

HYDROELECTRIC-- This is the historic and allegedly cleanest form of electrical generation.  Well not exactly so.  Ask the fish who get ground up in the outlet turbines or the fish who cannot get upstream back to their spawning grounds.  Hydroelectric also depends on something called rain or snowpack. Lack of rain or snow produces no juice.  Ask Californians during this year's 2015 exceptional drought.  The dam itself can interfere with silt migrating to the ocean and interfere with delta maintenance.  The Nile River and the Aswan dam is a good example.   

Global Warming or Climate Change --  Thank God there are people who are not afraid to go against the grain, not politically correct and whose virtue is the search for the truth regardless of where it leads, whether their name is Galileo or scientists and engineers who are not afraid to ask pertinent questions. According to hysterical environmentalists who frequently know nothing about science, the earth is becoming warmer.  Proof is lacking of course as the earth has always been in a cyclical thermal state. Let's not forget that Carbon Dioxide is a fertilizer, without which no plant could grow.  Carbon Dioxide is vilified as a Greenhouse Gas.  Frankly I love the smell in Greenhouses.  Water Vapor is also a Greenhouse gas but no one ever seems to mention that.  

During the Maunder Minimum, where there were few sunspots from 1645 to 1715.  The "Little Ice Age" generally viewed as from 1300 to 1650 fell upon Europe possibly as a build up although outside the Maunder Minimum time range.  Greenland and Iceland had to be evacuated.  Well for the last few years there have been very few sunspots also.  The earth is actually becoming cooler, spotted Al Gore aside.  See the website by Casey, for more details.

The climate of the earth is ruled by the Sun.  Man is an insignificant factor.  It is energy from the Sun which causes the wind to blow, powers the tides, creates weather systems and ocean currents, causes plants to grow, water to evaporate and clouds to form.  It appears that changes in magnetic fields and Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) from the Sun also cause earthquakes on the earth.    Man's effects are insignificant by comparison.  

Solar Cycle 23 ended in January 2008.  It had 821 Sun spotless days.   Solar Cycle 24 is the 24th solar cycle since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began.   The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, but there was minimal activity until early 2010.    Cycle 24 is on track to be the Solar Cycle with the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750.  Generally, a Solar Cycle is 11 years which is correlated with the time for the planet Jupiter to orbit the Sun.

ELECTRIC CARS --  This has to be one of the greatest jokes in the 21st century.  Electric cars are said to be pollution free, quiet etc. The question  needs to be asked --


It most probably comes from the burning of coal!  Electricity is generated typically using a boiler that generates steam which is connected to a generator. Yes, it can also come from hydroelectric, nuclear, wind or solar etc.  The bottom line problem is that even the most modern battery uses Lithium which has one electron in its valence shell which is available for combustion.   Carbon has 4 electrons in its valence shell available for combustion.  Now, which one are you going to place your bet or should I say society's bet on,  the 4 or the 1.  End of story!

HYDROGEN CARS -  If Electric Cars are a fraud then Hydrogen Cars have got to be a nightmare.  This is not a technical paper but Hydrogen Gas has the highest range of explosive limits of any gas.  From 5% to 95% Hydrogen in the air will explode.  Hydrogen has a very low amount of energy available due to its only one electron that can enter into a chemical reaction.  Due to that characteristic, it will take an unreasonably large liquid fuel tank to carry Hydrogen in the car.  Liquid Hydrogen is under about 5000 pounds/ sq. in. pressure, just the thing you want to have in case the tank ruptures.  The Hydrogen gas atom is so small it can cause grain embrittlement in any metal and actually leak through the metal.    That means the leaking gas can change the structure of the metal enclosure. Hydrogen burns without a visible flame and if there is a leak it can self-ignite on contact with the air due to its having a negative Joule-Thompson coefficient.  Charming!  I don't want to be around any Hydrogen car.  They are simply dangerous.  The last question needs to be asked --

WHERE DOES THE HYDROGEN COME FROM?   Most probably from the burning of coal to make electricity to make hydrogen from the electrical decomposition of water.  Steam methane reforming is another method.  The bottom line is that more energy will be used to make the Hydrogen then what is ultimately produced and the waste energy will be dumped into the atmosphere.    Thank you Department of Energy. Let's talk about global warming in the same sentence.

ETHANOL -- Of all of the energy schemes, the ethanol industry is the biggest fraud. 35% of ethanol's weight is incombustible oxygen, only 65% of its mass can possibly produce any energy. Therefore users must buy 1/3 more fuel to get the identical amount of usable energy, say from ethane. Ethanol is hygroscopic meaning it attracts water which helps corrode iron fittings and pipes.  It is a polar molecule meaning that rubber and any latex compounds cannot be used as gaskets fittings etc.  Special compounds such as Viton must be used in fuel delivery systems to be compatible with ethanol chemistry. Ethanol production via fermentation produces Carbon Dioxide, the alleged devil of the chemical world.

The conversion of ethanol from corn syrup is exothermic, meaning that there is less energy in the ethanol product than in its parent compounds. This is just another efficiency loss in the product. There are many arguments which I will not discuss stating that ethanol is energy negative, meaning that the energy needed to produce ethanol which goes into planting and harvesting the corn as well as processing the product exceeds the available energy from the product aside from water usage to grow the corn.  It is interesting that no ethanol plant uses ethanol to power its reboilers in the distillation columns or too dry the ethanol from 95% azeotropic to 100% pure in absorber/dryers. That alone should tell us that those who make it know its limitations.

Every consumer of ethanol has good cause to complain because its use is not optional, but is mandated by Environmental Protection Agency with the approval of Congress. Ranking House Agriculture Committee member Collin Peterson, a former farmer from Western Minnesota farm country, has correctly stated that if the EPA studies the peripheral output of greenhouse gases that result from ethanol production it will have no choice but to kill the ethanol industry. Peterson does not want this to happen, some of his constituents are corn farmers. One study that is shocking is The Fargione, Hill, Tilman, Polasky and Hawthorne study (“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”) which confirms what Peterson fears and this has been known since 2007, that biofuels' production from cleared agricultural lands is creating a “carbon debt” by initially releasing 17 to 420 times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that it will save on an annual basis, through land conversion activities.

This study makes, even more, sense recently because ethanol is currently being imported in substantial quantities from Brazil, due to high USA corn prices, caused by ethanol consumption of more than 35% of all US corn. Brazil’s farmers are clearing and burning virgin rainforest land to make way for ethanol production from sugar cane. Obviously, we all live on the same planet with rainforest farmers… their greenhouse gasses are ours.

BIODIESEL FUELS  -- Biodiesel fuels typically use virgin soybean oil or kitchen oil wastes and convert them to usable biodiesel oil. Biodiesel is made in a chemical reaction called trans-esterification. Trans-esterification is the joining of two dissimilar organic compounds as an ester. Typically, the reactants are soybean oil and methanol in the presence of a catalyst. Animal fat may also be used as a reactant in place of the vegetable oil. The products are biodiesel, an ester, and glycerin, a waste product.  All esters have an Oxygen atom in their chain and consequently are “polar” molecules which have uneven electron charges. Polar molecules are good solvents. Consequently, biodiesel will remove varnish and sludge that may be in existing systems that previously used petrodiesel fuel. While on the surface this might be a good thing, the introduction of biodiesel may cause fuel filters etc. to become plugged. 

Because of its superior solvent characteristics, ethanol will dissolve rubber piping, gaskets or latex materials. Existing gaskets and seals may need to be replaced with new materials such as Teflon, or EPDM etc. Gaskets of rubber, PVC, Cork, leather and plastic will also need to be replaced as they will destruct. The oxygen in esters attracts water which is similar to its own oxygen atom. Water may be found in biodiesel for other reasons. While every attempt is made to remove all water from the fuel, it still exists, albeit in small quantities. Nothing about water helps any fuel. The greatest problem is that the water has to be vaporized when the fuel is combusted. Water has one of the highest heats of vaporization known to man. The consequence is fewer miles per gallon. Water in the fuel attracts Oxygen from the air.  Oxygen through catalytic action promotes rust on any iron or steel that may come into contact with the fuel.

Historically diesel fuel has been about 30-40 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline. Currently (2015) diesel fuel is about 30-40 cents per gallon more expensive. Why? EPA rules. After Dec 1, 2010, all diesel sold in the US is what is called Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD). Refiners had to construct refinery units that had high-pressure facilities where hydrogen gas under high pressure reacted with and saturated available double bonds in the fuel to remove Sulfur as hydrogen sulfide. Three characteristics of this “paraffinic” fuel were to (1) reduce the lubricity of the fuel oil, and (2) increase the pour point; and (3) be more expensive. These new refinery units had to use expensive stainless steels because the reactors, piping and some vessels had to operate at temperatures up to 1500 degrees oF range and 2000 psi pressure. Raising the pour point meant that fuels that were liquid, at say -20 degrees oF, would now gel, at say +10 degrees oF. This could cause many problems in the winter time. The consequence was that we now had more expensive fuel that could more easily gel if you were not careful, such as buying fuel in Texas and shutting the truck down on a cold winter day in Northern Illinois. You might not be able to restart the engine. The pour point problem has been modified by adding expensive, toxic and exotic pour point depressants. Some of these anti-gelling pour point depressants may contain small amounts of toxic aromatic compounds, usually xylene or toluene, and must be handled with care.

WINNERS AND LOSERS -- Regarding biofuels, the winners are the chemical industry and the few people who receive jobs and profits from this activity.  While promised as a tax generating activity, typically these institutions gain property tax amnesty for a number of years as well as other perks such as free land etc. The lawyer-lobbyists in Washington DC, who lobby Congress against the best interests of the American people, also profit. The chemical industry gets to use unwanted methanol and make it into biodiesel and sell it at a greatly increased price. You did not think that these ventures were designed as an altruistic activity to help society. Crop farmers receive higher prices for their corn and soybeans. State and federal governments will receive increased motor fuel taxes because ethanol and biodiesel have less energy per gallon. Motorists and truckers will require more (gallons) of fuel for the same amount of mileage.

The losers are (1) the American taxpayer who has to pay subsidies to a small group of capitalists and pay higher prices for food; (2) the motoring public who is forced to use inferior chemicals for fuels and be subject to higher maintenance costs to operate a vehicle; (3) the beef, sheep, chicken and horse farmers who are forced to pay higher prices for grain; (4) the jobs destroyed due to government misallocation of resources, some jobs became uneconomical due to the subsidies and were discontinued or never created. This is similar to the “stimulus” bill that only will serve to reduce the overall number of jobs; (5) the large amount of water taken from the aquifer to operate the plant and the waste generated from this activity not to mention insecticides and herbicides required to grow the plants.  Shortage of food and a growing world population will eventually force the burning of corn as fuel to come to an end, but in the meantime, consumers are the losers. Congress could repeal laws that compel the use of crops and grains for biofuels and reduce or eliminate taxpayer subsidies for their use.

ECONOMICS -- In August 2015 the price of crude oil is approximately in the $45-50 range which is about 1/2 of what it was a year ago.  This reduction in the price of crude oil has affected the prices of all energy products and projects.  In a system, every element in that system affects every other element to some degree.  Fracking is disappearing due to its high operating cost.  Ethanol and biodiesel production is also under price pressure.  Windmills and solar panels are also becoming more uncompetitive as a consequence of the current crude oil price.  Even the justification for nuclear plants is being evaluated due to the relatively low cost of petroleum.  Coal being the richest thermodynamically of all energy sources, is under legislative attack citing its negative environmental characteristics.

TESLA FREE ENERGY --  Nothing beats "free" if only you can capture it.  We hear a lot about Nikola Tesla and his alleged devices that produced free energy.  Well no one has duplicated these so-called free energy devices.  Allegedly they received energy from the cosmos, whether the energy was in the form of magnetic, electric or just mass of some kind is not known.  Considering the 72 years since Tesla's death in 1943 and the great number of scientists and countries that would like free energy, no one has publicly disclosed such an invention.  Personally, I don't believe that it exists.  There is really nothing free in this world whether we like it or not.  

When I was a kid I had several crystal sets.  A crystal set was nothing more than a crystal, originally made from Galena crystals as the detection element.  Later Germanium diodes replaced the Galena crystals.  The crystal or the diode were half-wave rectifiers.  A coil was necessary for resonance tuning. One set had a high "Q" coil and was very selective.  I had a copper antenna wire that was about 300 feet long and the ground was attached to a water pipe.  I could listen with my earphones to medium wave AM stations, night and day for free.

McCanney in the past has solicited funds to build a Tesla tower.  To my knowledge, this has never happened.  It took me awhile to realize that McCanney is all about money.

It is my understanding that Tesla's Tower in Shoreham New York was for power transmission and not for free energy.   The bottom line is that it will take an antenna of a fairly large cross-sectional area to capture whatever field or mass flow that Tesla allegedly wanted to capture and turn into power.  
There are many towers in the world that dwarf the size of Tesla's tower (187 feet).  Certainly, if there were free power and all one needed was a high point, it would have been done long ago.

I am a degreed and registered Chemical Engineer, specializing in Organic Chemistry, living in North Carolina.  I have worked for most of my career in the petrochemical industry and petroleum refineries.  I have written critically about the Ethanol economics Industry based on studies of a Corn Ethanol plant in Hoke County North Carolina. This plant was built with significant taxpayer financing but only operated a few months due to the rising price of corn.  It is presently dismantled.  I have clearly exposed the economic and technical deficiencies of this and other ethanol plants.  Hopefully, this article has contributed to the public understanding of this fraud.

26 August 2015