[stuntmangt]

How much energy would we produce if we ran at the speed of light? And would it affect objects that are displaying kinetic energy?

[CaptainRich]

I don't think you would produce energy. You would consume energy.

[CaptainRich]

How much energy would we produce if we ran at the speed of light? And would it affect objects that are displaying kinetic energy?

The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. Negative work of the same magnitude would be required to return the body to a state of rest from that velocity.

Your original post, and subsequent disagreement, is errant and contradictory, in that it infers that there is no greater consumption than generation of kinetic energy. You need to take into account inertia, which Einstein did. Had your premise been accurate, we would have perpetual motion. But we don't.

[ebaines]

The kinetic energy of a body that is moving relative to some rest framework is mv^2/2. At lightspeed the value for v is by definition c, the speed of light. But the value for m is not a constant - it actually increases as the object approaches lightspeed. If M0 is rest mass, then the mass at velocity is m = M0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Hence as the velocity approaches light speed, the object's mass approaches infinity, and its kinetic energy also approaches infinity. In other words, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get an object with mass>0 to reach the speed of light.

[Credendovidis]

How much energy would we produce if we ran at the speed of light? And would it affect objects that are displaying kinetic energy?

Nill. Nothing with any mass can reach the speed of light, as there is not enough energy in the entire universe to accelerate that fast.
;)