This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I came upon this article while sorting out refs to Propane that should have pointed to Liquified petroleum gas or Autogas.
What I found is an article that is of excessive length (some parts need to be split to sub articles to get the main article back under 32k bytes), has serious NPOV problems (mostly due to presenting theories including peak oil and global warming as if they are facts* and a very USA-centric intro. As such, I've added {{Cleanup}}, {{NPOV}} & {{Worldwide}} tags. -- Athol Mullen 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
SEE the paragraphs under the above title in TALK/Discussion in the "maize" article.
An agricultural solution to our renewable energy needs in the US or in the world is an utter mirage, fostered by the midwest US corn lobby in Washington, DC, not to mention the sugar cane plantation owners in Brazil. Agriculturally based sunfall energy capture and conversion is simply too inefficient compared to, say, photovoltaic sunfall conversion. Bush did another unsurprising "stupid" just now on that !
Incidentally, any "alternate" energy source which is NOT renewable should not be considered since it does nothing to cut CO2 emissions. Thus, the exploitation of more natural gas or of "methane ice" (an unexpected source to most people) is not an acceptable solution to our energy needs. Allenwoll 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This section strikes me as being particularly non-encyclopedic in terms of importance. USD $20 M/year is significant, but is not really a historic sum, and probably much more could be said about other places (e.g. BP's $500M deal with UC Berkeley, or all the DOE work in the U.S.). I'm inclined to remove this section unless someone can say more about the impact this deal has made (and please don't cite "potential" impacts). -- chodges 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved "Oil consumption in the United States" section to the Energy use in the United States, and "United States' relationships with oil-producing countries" to the Energy policy of the United States as U.S. specific and not directly about renewable fuels sections. Also "U.S. Government preference for cellulosic ethanol" section moved to the Ethanol fuel in the United States. Subsections of the "Corn-derived ethanol" moved to the Corn ethanol. Beagel 19:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Renewable fuels, renewable energy (energy made from renewable resources), and renewable resources are very different topics. Merging them all would be way too huge of an article. NJGW ( talk) 02:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per NJGW arguments
Oppose. They are standalone articles of their own right. I will link the two more intimately with Template:Seealso. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Fuels are but a subset of available energy sources. For example, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and tidal energy are not fuels, and this is not even a complete list. --
Skyemoor (
talk) 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
My view is that it not only isn't a fuel, but it isn't renewable. See this (apparently blacklisted) link: www.fuelcellmarkets.com/national_hydrogen_association/news_and_information/3,1,27253,1,27442.html
which suggests that they are totally separate in the auto industry too. NJGW ( talk) 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hydrogen is a clean fuel and as it is obtained from water available in plenty on earth so it is close to renewable. Dr. Punit Mangal ( talk) 14:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
There are a few startups with renewable fuels: Oberon Fuels (dimethylether) Sunfire blue crude Not sure whether they're noteworthy Genetics4good ( talk) 17:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I came upon this article while sorting out refs to Propane that should have pointed to Liquified petroleum gas or Autogas.
What I found is an article that is of excessive length (some parts need to be split to sub articles to get the main article back under 32k bytes), has serious NPOV problems (mostly due to presenting theories including peak oil and global warming as if they are facts* and a very USA-centric intro. As such, I've added {{Cleanup}}, {{NPOV}} & {{Worldwide}} tags. -- Athol Mullen 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
SEE the paragraphs under the above title in TALK/Discussion in the "maize" article.
An agricultural solution to our renewable energy needs in the US or in the world is an utter mirage, fostered by the midwest US corn lobby in Washington, DC, not to mention the sugar cane plantation owners in Brazil. Agriculturally based sunfall energy capture and conversion is simply too inefficient compared to, say, photovoltaic sunfall conversion. Bush did another unsurprising "stupid" just now on that !
Incidentally, any "alternate" energy source which is NOT renewable should not be considered since it does nothing to cut CO2 emissions. Thus, the exploitation of more natural gas or of "methane ice" (an unexpected source to most people) is not an acceptable solution to our energy needs. Allenwoll 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This section strikes me as being particularly non-encyclopedic in terms of importance. USD $20 M/year is significant, but is not really a historic sum, and probably much more could be said about other places (e.g. BP's $500M deal with UC Berkeley, or all the DOE work in the U.S.). I'm inclined to remove this section unless someone can say more about the impact this deal has made (and please don't cite "potential" impacts). -- chodges 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved "Oil consumption in the United States" section to the Energy use in the United States, and "United States' relationships with oil-producing countries" to the Energy policy of the United States as U.S. specific and not directly about renewable fuels sections. Also "U.S. Government preference for cellulosic ethanol" section moved to the Ethanol fuel in the United States. Subsections of the "Corn-derived ethanol" moved to the Corn ethanol. Beagel 19:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Renewable fuels, renewable energy (energy made from renewable resources), and renewable resources are very different topics. Merging them all would be way too huge of an article. NJGW ( talk) 02:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per NJGW arguments
Oppose. They are standalone articles of their own right. I will link the two more intimately with Template:Seealso. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Fuels are but a subset of available energy sources. For example, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and tidal energy are not fuels, and this is not even a complete list. --
Skyemoor (
talk) 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
My view is that it not only isn't a fuel, but it isn't renewable. See this (apparently blacklisted) link: www.fuelcellmarkets.com/national_hydrogen_association/news_and_information/3,1,27253,1,27442.html
which suggests that they are totally separate in the auto industry too. NJGW ( talk) 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hydrogen is a clean fuel and as it is obtained from water available in plenty on earth so it is close to renewable. Dr. Punit Mangal ( talk) 14:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
There are a few startups with renewable fuels: Oberon Fuels (dimethylether) Sunfire blue crude Not sure whether they're noteworthy Genetics4good ( talk) 17:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)