How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You just can't comprehend that long life LFP batteries are already in mass use. Half of all new Teslas already use them as well as half of all Chinese EVs. And of course I have to remind you that China is the largest EV market in the world.

"half of Tesla's vehicles are now installed with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries.

Tesla's shift is actually following and in turn enhancing the market trend. In the China market, according to statistics from the China Automotive Power Battery Industry Innovation Alliance, the share of domestic LFP batteries in the installed power battery capacity has increased from 38% in 2020 to 52% in 2021, and the has surpassed that of ternary material batteries."

https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101816603/Installed-Capacity-of-LFP-Batteries-Likely-to-Grab-60-of-Market-Share-by-2024/

Lithium prices are rising rapidly. 

And LFP batteries are low performance batteries for short trips.

Jay, you want the American people to lower their standard of living for no good reason? Very foolish.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Lithium prices are rising rapidly. 

And LFP batteries are low performance batteries for short trips.

Jay, you want the American people to lower their standard of living for no good reason? Very foolish.

Lithium prices have been decreasing and LFP batteries are excellent performance batteries that are very popular! Almost all trips are short trips.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Lithium prices have been decreasing and LFP batteries are excellent performance batteries that are very popular! Almost all trips are short trips.

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

The Tesla LFP car has a range of 267 miles. 

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Tesla LFP car has a range of 267 miles. 

But in the real world it is more like 180 miles and thats if your drive like an 85 year old!

My boss has a Tesla with the extended range LFP battery, he drove to London and back circa 220 mile round trip and the car told him after 130 miles to either stop and charge it up (it was fully charged before ther journey started) or to continue but to drive at no more than 60 miles per hour on the highway (most people drive at 85mph in the UK). He wasnt impressed at all!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

Eco smeak-o.  LFP has nearly same energy density as NMC at the battery pack level as all the safety gear is absent and its form factor is better, and it has higher C rate, which means for same DoD on the battery it lasts much longer.  No nickel, no cobalt.  Also, per KWh, uses less lithium as well.  Unfortunately, there is a new LFPSi version coming out which is not only cheaper, uses less lithium, but the batteries only last half as long and I will bet you that MOST LFP will actually be LFPSi so the cars will not last all that long as car companies will want to sell more cars and LFP will in the long run be money losing so they will change to LFPSi to shorten the life of cars.  OH yea, and no patents on LFP which means EVERYONE will use it. 

PS: Everyone has it wrong regarding range on EV. The reason for the range is so you charge less often and your batteries lose capacity slower.  If you constantly pull near 100% or even 70%, your battery loses charge MUCH MUCH quicker and why car companies love shorter ranged vehicles.  Get to sell more cars sooner.  I will bet only old versions of EV's will have long range and nearly all going forward will certainly never go over 300mi as the cars will last too long.  What everyone actually wants is a ~500mi range so by 20 years it will still have a 300 mi range.  Replace the seats and a new paint job and the car should be able to go another 20 years.

[Boat + 1,323]

15 hours ago, Billyjack said:

The posts of the flock of the Church of Warming add credence to Bonhoeffer's contention, 

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

You mean 30% of US refinery capacity is foreign owned? That’s kinda stupid? Allowing Russian and Chinese money in our markets and business. Seems kinda stupid. Breath the air of refining for foreigners and what you get is pollution and bad health. foreigners don’t refine enough in their own countries. I guess they be fighting the evil. They have churches glorifying war instead. Then they ship oil for others to refine. 

[Boat + 1,323]

One wonders just how much fossil fuel US infrastructure is foreign owned and what they spend on lobbying. We know 30% of refining capacity is foreign owned. What about the grids. Any Russian or Chinese oligarchs own big chunks? We hear 25% of twitter is an algorithm. With the wild foreign stuff you hear it’s probably internet wide. Them Republicans are not my daddy’s Republicans. They Coup promoting, polluting promoting, anti rule of law promoting. Put two and two together and you get foreign algorithms are Republicans. My new conspiracy for the day. I mean look. They have power or the 250+ legislators that voted not to investigate the Coup would be in jail with Trump the liar. Lol What doesn't wash is Trump isn’t smart enough for algorithms. He can’t even handle pillowhead talk. Trump brains work like Putin brains. Big plans but poor support. Algorithms can spread idiot ideology to the masses but don’t think to good. 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Tesla LFP car has a range of 267 miles. 

The demand for EV is in the short range.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

6 hours ago, Boat said:

One wonders just how much fossil fuel US infrastructure is foreign owned and what they spend on lobbying. We know 30% of refining capacity is foreign owned. What about the grids. Any Russian or Chinese oligarchs own big chunks? We hear 25% of twitter is an algorithm. With the wild foreign stuff you hear it’s probably internet wide. Them Republicans are not my daddy’s Republicans. They Coup promoting, polluting promoting, anti rule of law promoting. Put two and two together and you get foreign algorithms are Republicans. My new conspiracy for the day. I mean look. They have power or the 250+ legislators that voted not to investigate the Coup would be in jail with Trump the liar. Lol What doesn't wash is Trump isn’t smart enough for algorithms. He can’t even handle pillowhead talk. Trump brains work like Putin brains. Big plans but poor support. Algorithms can spread idiot ideology to the masses but don’t think to good. 

Gasoline and diesel prices are rising through the roof due to a lack of refining capacity, caused by the mistaken government promotion of an anti-fossil fuel policy. That has reduced investment in refineries and caused the current pain at the gas pump.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

But in the real world it is more like 180 miles and thats if your drive like an 85 year old!

My boss has a Tesla with the extended range LFP battery, he drove to London and back circa 220 mile round trip and the car told him after 130 miles to either stop and charge it up (it was fully charged before ther journey started) or to continue but to drive at no more than 60 miles per hour on the highway (most people drive at 85mph in the UK). He wasnt impressed at all!

I guess all that bluff we get from Jay is just industry propaganda.....which is what I have noticed for some time now.

What I also noticed is that Jay does not drive an EV himself, he just urges others to do it.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

No EVs do the hard daily real work and ICE is maybe used for the occasional long trip.

Interestingly, the study found that the respondents who drove more frequently than others were more likely to consider an EV. This is likely due to gas prices, which have skyrocketed in 2022. The study says:

“The study, now in its second year, finds that the more vehicle owners drive, the more they are likely to consider an EV. While daily commuters who are encountering higher fuel prices are logical candidates to switch to EVs, those who take frequent vacations and road trips might be assumed to be less likely to adopt EVs. But, like heavy commuters, heavy road-trippers have a higher EV purchase consideration tendency than those who use their vehicles less often for this purpose. It could be an indication that frequent drivers are increasingly seeing the advantages of EVs compared with their gasoline-powered counterparts.”

https://www.teslarati.com/americans-evs-next-car-jd-power-2022/

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

But in the real world it is more like 180 miles and thats if your drive like an 85 year old!

My boss has a Tesla with the extended range LFP battery, he drove to London and back circa 220 mile round trip and the car told him after 130 miles to either stop and charge it up (it was fully charged before ther journey started) or to continue but to drive at no more than 60 miles per hour on the highway (most people drive at 85mph in the UK). He wasnt impressed at all!

But it satisfies his needs well 99% of the time. To offset that 1% he can consider how he doesn't have to go to a gas station on a weekly basis, he just wakes up with a full car every morning.

There is currently only one size of Tesla LFP battery, no extended range versions.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

The number of consumers looking to buy electric vehicles has hit 52%, according to the latest EY Mobility Consumer Index (MCI). This is the first time the number has exceeded 50%, and it represents a rise of 22 percentage points in just two years.

EV buyers are on the rise

The MCI survey has tracked consumer mobility patterns and buying intentions since the start of the pandemic in 2020. EY writes:

While overall levels of travel reported remain lower when compared to the pre-pandemic benchmark, the number of consumers who say constant access to a personal car is very important to them is rising, and for the first time more than half of those surveyed, 52%, who intend to buy a car say they intend to choose either a fully electric, plug-in hybrid or hybrid vehicle.

In a survey of 13,000 people in 18 countries, car buyers in Italy (73%), China (69%), and South Korea (63%) are the most committed to buying an EV. Consumers in Australia (38%) and the US (29%) are the least committed.

_________________________________________________________

J.D. Power’s annual U.S. Electric Vehicle Consideration (EVC) Study was released today, and it shows that more Americans said they are “very likely” to buy an electric car for their next vehicle now more than ever.

The study showed that 24 percent of respondents said they were “very likely” to buy an EV for their next purchase or lease, a 4 percent increase from a year ago. Several factors contributed to the increased interest in purchasing an EV, but the biggest contributor was the expansion of the electric pickup truck market, which was labeled “important” and “largely untapped.”

“The addition of new EV models has moved the needle on consumer consideration,” J.D. Power’s Senior Director of Automotive Retail, Stewart Stropp, said. “In fact, several new models from perennial mass-market brands are at the top of that consideration list. Even so, more remains to be done in terms of transitioning from early to mass adoption. Though the study findings show a shift in favor of EVs, about 76% of new-vehicle shoppers say they are not ‘very likely’ to consider buying one. With new EV model introductions coming at a rapid pace, automakers must continue their efforts to persuade more shoppers to give these vehicles a try.”

Living situations also attributed to whether people were considering an electric vehicle for their next car. People who owned their homes were much more likely to say they were “very likely” to consider an EV next, with 27 percent of respondents giving that response. Only 17 percent of those who rented their living quarters said they would consider an EV.

Charging infrastructure also played a substantial part in whether people were considering an EV. Thirty-four percent of people said they were unlikely to consider an EV gave this response because they said they lacked access to charging capabilities at home or at their place of work.

 

Interestingly, the study found that the respondents who drove more frequently than others were more likely to consider an EV. This is likely due to gas prices, which have skyrocketed in 2022. The study says:

“The study, now in its second year, finds that the more vehicle owners drive, the more they are likely to consider an EV. While daily commuters who are encountering higher fuel prices are logical candidates to switch to EVs, those who take frequent vacations and road trips might be assumed to be less likely to adopt EVs. But, like heavy commuters, heavy road-trippers have a higher EV purchase consideration tendency than those who use their vehicles less often for this purpose. It could be an indication that frequent drivers are increasingly seeing the advantages of EVs compared with their gasoline-powered counterparts.”

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[JoMack + 549]

On 3/17/2022 at 12:04 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

In regard to renewable energy? Absolutely I do. 

That might explain why my numbers are right and your numbers are almost always wrong.

I think the reason you won't post the article is because you know it is mostly BS.

 

LOVE THOSE BATTERIES THAT ARE GOING TO SAVE THE PLANET WITH STORAGE FOR RENEWABLES!  

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, JoMack said:

 

LOVE THOSE BATTERIES THAT ARE GOING TO SAVE THE PLANET WITH STORAGE FOR RENEWABLES!  

 

Yep, going to be great getting away from the much more flammable coal and gas power plants. From the past month:

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,243]

On 5/26/2022 at 8:03 PM, Ecocharger said:

Lithium prices are rising rapidly. 

And LFP batteries are low performance batteries for short trips.

Jay, you want the American people to lower their standard of living for no good reason? Very foolish.

Lithium prices are rising rapidly???? at the present price the amount of $$$ for the lithium carbonate in a F150 Ford Lightning is 

drum rolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

98 KWH battery...........

drum roll

.85 kg of lithium carbonate per KWH

drum rolll

83 kilos of Lithium carbonate

drum roll

at 450000 CYN per metric ton

drum roll

$67500 per metric tonne

or in a car  $5602 at todays price

 

this is why Ford can sell a AWD all electric 4 door pickup truck for less than $40000

an ICE AWD Ford F150 4 door pickup costs more

The cost of the Lithium is not a huge factor in the price of an EV

enjoy 

 

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Wombat One said:

I think the amount of grey matter between your ears peaked long ago?

You are the one that apparently thinks we need more CO2 for food production when most of the world's birth rate is below replacement or that the increased CO2 is what is behind our increased food production over the past 50 years. Corn doesn't benefit from the extra CO2 yet production has increased many times thanks to fertilizer and technology. It doesn't matter that population will peak in 30 or 40 years. CO2 won't decrease between now and then, we will just achieve neutrality. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ron Wagner + 702]

On 4/20/2022 at 4:54 PM, NickW said:

7 -20 years supply of gas. What then after that? 

You really have no idea how much natural gas and biogas potential there is. That is even without methane hydrates which are even greater than that on land!

[Ron Wagner + 702]

17 hours ago, notsonice said:

Lithium prices are rising rapidly???? at the present price the amount of $$$ for the lithium carbonate in a F150 Ford Lightning is 

drum rolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

98 KWH battery...........

drum roll

.85 kg of lithium carbonate per KWH

drum rolll

83 kilos of Lithium carbonate

drum roll

at 450000 CYN per metric ton

drum roll

$67500 per metric tonne

or in a car  $5602 at todays price

 

this is why Ford can sell a AWD all electric 4 door pickup truck for less than $40000

an ICE AWD Ford F150 4 door pickup costs more

The cost of the Lithium is not a huge factor in the price of an EV

enjoy 

Lets us know what the real selling price and availability is for the future vehicles. I tried to buy a hybrid Maverick pickup and was told I could not place an order at the time. I hope you are right but caution anyone in the market to add up the real prices and pros and cons. Electricity prices are going up and it is not free, like a lot of people think. Computer chips are a huge factor also. I have a small, medium and large vehicle. I doubt if we will need a new vehicle at all. I can probably make them last ten more years. They have an average of 50,000 miles on them. One gets 40 mpg. It is the newest. 

17 hours ago, notsonice said:

 

 

 

 

[Ron Wagner + 702]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-summer-of-rolling-blackouts-green-energy-grid-north-american-electric-reliability-corporation-11653683348?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

 

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• LINKEDIN
• COPY FREE LINK
• EMAIL

• OPINION 
•  REVIEW & OUTLOOK

America’s Summer of Rolling Blackouts

Green energy policies are making the nation’s electric-power grid increasingly unstable.

 

 

By 

The Editorial BoardFollowing

 

May 27, 2022 7:00 pm ET

 

SAVE

 

PRINT

 

TEXT

 

1,022

PHOTO: LUKE SHARETT/BLOOMBERG NEWS

Listen to article

Length(5 minutes)

Queue

Summer is around the corner, and we suggest you prepare by buying an emergency generator, if you can find one in stock. Last week the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned that two-thirds of the U.S. could experience blackouts this summer. Welcome to the “green energy transition.”

We’ve been warning for years that climate policies would make the grid more vulnerable to vacillations in supply and demand. And here we are. Some of the mainstream press are belatedly catching on that blackouts are coming, but they still don’t grasp the real problem: The forced transition to green energy is distorting energy markets and destabilizing the grid.

 

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH

The Debt Monster That Could Eat Washington

 

 

00:00

1x

SUBSCRIBE

Progressives blame the grid problems on climate change. There’s no doubt that drought in the western U.S. is a contributing factor. NERC’s report notes that hydropower generators in the western U.S. are running at lower levels, and output from thermal (i.e., nuclear and fossil fuel) generators that use the Missouri River for cooling may be affected this summer.

But the U.S. has experienced bad droughts in the past. The problem now is the loss of baseload generators that can provide reliable power 24/7. Solar and wind are rapidly increasing, but they’re as erratic as the weather and can’t be commanded to ramp up when electricity demand surges.

---

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Opinion: Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW

 

SUBSCRIBED

---

 

One problem is that subsidies enable wind and solar generators to turn a profit even when the supply of electricity exceeds demand. Coal and nuclear plants, on the other hand, can’t make money running only some of the time, so many have shut down. Natural-gas-fired plants can help pick up the slack, but there aren’t enough of them to back up all of the renewables coming onto the grid.

California last August scrambled to install five emergency gas-fired generators to avert blackouts, but its grid overseer recently warned of power outages this summer. The Golden State in past summers has relied on power imports from neighboring states. But coal plants across the West have been shutting down as renewables grow.

The risk is greater if there are wildfires, which could disrupt transmission lines. Progressives say building more transmission lines to bring renewable power from rural areas to cities and suburbs will make the grid more resilient. But this may create new vulnerabilities. A tornado this winter damaged a transmission line in the Midwest and raised the risk of power outages this summer as repairs continue.

Manufacturers in the Midwest have relied on cheap and reliable power, but that may be a thing of the past. NERC says the Midwest this summer is at very high risk of power outages, especially if there’s little wind. That’s because 3,200 MW in net generation capacity—mostly coal and nuclear—have shut down since last summer. That’s enough to power about 2.4 million homes.

The threat to the Midwest grid will increase in coming years as more coal and nuclear plants shut down. Electricity supplier Vistra has announced it will retire 6,800 MW of coal power by 2027, blaming an “irreparably dysfunctional” market and the state renewable subsidies. The former is partly a result of the latter.

“We don’t have the opportunity to just shut down a facility for four hours or six hours or eight hours a lot of time,” Illinois Manufacturers’ Association CEO Mark Denzler recently told the Center Square newsletter. “If you’re making certain products, take a food product for example, you can’t just shut down and have that food remain on the line.”

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said recently he didn’t expect power outages since the state could buy power from neighbors. He’d better read the NERC report. Most Democrats don’t seem to recognize or care that their climate policies are making the grid less resilient and reliable. Instead they’re doubling down.

***

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Glick last week brushed aside NERC’s warnings: “I think the argument about going back to the way it used to be 30 years ago—that’s not going to happen,” he said. “We’re moving forward” with the green energy transition. Believe it or not, FERC is the agency in charge of ensuring the grid is reliable.

President Biden has renominated Mr. Glick for a second five-year term, and he’s counting on the FERC chairman to midwife his climate agenda. This winter he and the two other Democratic Commissioners imposed regulation requiring an analysis of greenhouse-gas emissions for gas pipelines even as Russia troops amassed at Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Glick shelved the policy after sharp criticism from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, but he’s likely to revive it once reconfirmed. His renomination is a clear and present danger to the U.S. electricity supply. The war in Ukraine and surging energy prices haven’t deterred Democrats from their anti-fossil fuels campaign. Will widespread power outages?

 

[JoMack + 549]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yep, going to be great getting away from the much more flammable coal and gas power plants. From the past month:

Pointing at old power plants that have no funding or support for upgrades and being ignored and derided for future use, is a cheap shot, but I give you kudos for your mass scrapbook of photo arrays to find these culprits around the world. However, I point out that the battery fire is Moss Landing.  The first battery storage facility in the U.S. and it is already having big problems and we're talking 4 hours of storage. The other facility in Australia is also a big boondoggle.  Prone to explosions, and toxic.  And, this is for "storage", and not for powering the grid. Don't see the happy ending for renewables you dream about Jay.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

53 minutes ago, JoMack said:

Pointing at old power plants that have no funding or support for upgrades and being ignored and derided for future use, is a cheap shot, but I give you kudos for your mass scrapbook of photo arrays to find these culprits around the world. However, I point out that the battery fire is Moss Landing.  The first battery storage facility in the U.S. and it is already having big problems and we're talking 4 hours of storage. The other facility in Australia is also a big boondoggle.  Prone to explosions, and toxic.  And, this is for "storage", and not for powering the grid. Don't see the happy ending for renewables you dream about Jay.

My scrapbook was done by just typing "power plant fire" into google and limiting the search to the last month.

That battery fire is not Moss Landing. The battery in Moss Landing did not catch on fire. The fire suppression system accidentally went off and damaged the battery. It is located inside the old turbine room of an old natural gas power plant and construction is underway to double the battery in size.

Yes they power the grid because they take excess electricity from one point in time and power the grid when demand increases.

Grid batteries are a raging success. They print money. The first merchant battery just got funding:

Fully merchant battery storage project in California raises US$78m debt financing

Siemens’ international financing arm, US development bank NADBank and energy storage developer EnerSmart Storage have signed a US$78.2 million loan facility to finance a fully merchant battery storage project in California totalling 165MW.

The debt facility from NADBank (North American Development Bank) and Siemens Financial Services will finance the design, construction and operation of a portfolio of utility-scale energy storage projects totalling 165MW/330MWh at nine sites in San Diego county. EnerSmart Storage is the developer, owner and operator of the projects, which are in the service territory of utility SDG&E.

The deal is thought to be the first reported project debt financing of fully merchant battery energy storage system (BESS) projects in the US, which means the BESS project does not have any long-term resource adequacy agreements with utilities in place, yet. The press release did say that the projects may provide energy through resource adequacy agreements in the future.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Boat + 1,323]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are the one that apparently thinks we need more CO2 for food production when most of the world's birth rate is below replacement or that the increased CO2 is what is behind our increased food production over the past 50 years. Corn doesn't benefit from the extra CO2 yet production has increased many times thanks to fertilizer and technology. It doesn't matter that population will peak in 30 or 40 years. CO2 won't decrease between now and then, we will just achieve neutrality. 

Resource depletion is not close to neutrality. Measuring things like aquifers and fertilizers show a problem. Co2 and the rise of oceans demonstrate the affect of overpopulation. But tech is powerful and if the world worked together instead of fighting wars maybe years of life lived could be reversed. Losing years of avg life is a sign of failure rednecks and lefties miss when it comes to overpopulation. It takes fewer humans and fewer problems for the masses to live longer. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Boat

[specinho + 457]

On 5/26/2022 at 6:27 PM, Boat said:

Putin is killing off population with high wheat and corn prices. We’ll have to see how many millions will be lost before we can judge resource depletion accurately. Interesting with India and China buying Russian FF, why is there a shortage of FF? Why are grains high? Speculation? Harvest isn’t for months. Smells like a scam. Anyhow there are like over a dozen countries that depend 100% on the Ukraine, Russia or both. Also there are many poor countries that approx 85% of the poors income goes towards food. The war has caused many commodities prices to double. Sensing a problem. Putin will get the credit for the needless attack. We could ship those poor to Russia. They need population due to the drink and little sex. Anyhow, will anybody rent them a boat yet? I see the holes all over the fields suggesting poor accuracy from a lack of chips? Can the Russians flip a McDonalds  burger without American management. Let us know. 

mm… great. The question remains might be: population of which kind, yes? We can probably consider the following:

if this rough draft is appropriate, we might deduce that

a) grasshopper eats greens of corn

b) chicken eats corn, grasshopper, worm

c) man eats corn, chicken, grasshopper, bird ( in short, all possibly found in a food chain)

Therefore, if corn is in shortage, grasshopper is affected the worst, yes?

 

wondering if a country would let its citizens rely on food of 100% imported? What did they eat before there were ships, trains, trucks or the likes?

 

if flipping burger is not a very popular spare time hobby for a population which made up of majority government servants and their families, why does it matter?