Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

BartenderElite said:
It's 53 years.

That's if consumption stays at current levels.

Think about that one.

Nukes are generationally irresponsible.
Click to expand...
it depends more on pricing then consumption
even 50 years is a long time - and advanced extraction techniques can open up the Arctic and Anarctic.

Then there is off shore. Nukes are fine. Im not an expert but there are new generation as well

wind and solar are not clean sources, they are only carbon free emissions.

Basically the market can do all this, but shutting down oil and nat gas is not feasible .
Zero emissons are not feasible
 
T. A. Gardner said:
AOC hasn't got a clue. It's sort of the asking her, "Where does hamburger come from?" Her answer would be "The grocery store, silly! Everybody knows that..." Same thing here. In her world wishes come true and reality doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

AOC is immersed in this stuff. She gets a lot of unwarranted ridicule from the right, but she thinks through all of the details on this and has sound reasoning for everything.

It's easier to marginalize someone than it is to actually counter their ideas w/ better ones. She's thinking with generational responsibility in mind.
 
anatta said:
it depends more on pricing then consumption
even 50 years is a long time - and advanced extraction techniques can open up the Arctic and Anarctic.
Click to expand...

No - it depends on consumption. And 50 years IS a long time - if it was accurate. But it is not. Because it does not take into account increased consumption.
 
Beijing Buyden said:
clearly you have the same reading comprehension skills as every other stupid fucking marxist on this board. The laws of thermodynamics is why wind and solar will never be able to provide the same cost effective energy as fossil fuels. It is impossible. Physics tells us it is so.
Click to expand...

Just what do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with wind, solar, or even oil? Then do affect the extraction of vegetable oils from plants, however, that does not include crude oil.

And being the dumb f**k repugnant one you are science is something to avoid.

If oil were truly "running out", it would be reflected in prices. It is not. Prices are high becuase artificial barriers put in place by gobblements and your gasoline prices are high thanks to taxation
Click to expand...

If not for fracking, a process developed by the "gobblement", where would the oil industry be? Then you add to the equation the growth of wind, and solar, and you have the answer to your mindless question.

PS

Kindly go fuck yourself. Thank you
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes, trying to promote a right wing thumb up your ass habit again.
 
BartenderElite said:
No - it depends on consumption. And 50 years IS a long time - if it was accurate. But it is not. Because it does not take into account increased consumption.
Click to expand...
the pricing allows for more extraction. You can't extract if the price to do so is greater then the market will bear.

Fraking is a whole new area. Look at the Dakotas.
When oil prices are high, they do a lot of fracking, when they are low ( like now) they don't

The pricing drives the extractions -same world wide. https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2017/3/1/how-its-quite-possible-canada-has-worlds-largest-o/
Alberta’s recoverable reserves of oil (oil sands) are, still conservatively, the largest on Earth by far, and are larger than those of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined, as shown in Table .
 
anatta said:
the pricing allows for more extraction. You can't extract if the price to do so is greater then the market will bear.

Fraking is a whole new area. Look at the Dakotas.
When oil prices are high, they do a lot of fracking, when they are low ( like now) they don't

The pricing drives the extractions -same world wide. https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2017/3/1/how-its-quite-possible-canada-has-worlds-largest-o/
Alberta’s recoverable reserves of oil (oil sands) are, still conservatively, the largest on Earth by far, and are larger than those of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined, as shown in Table .
Click to expand...

You're completely avoiding the topic.

Your estimate on time for the reserves is faulty, because it doesn't take any increased consumption into account.

The same logic applies to everything else you're citing.

You have no idea when we'll run out. No one does. With population increases, it could happen relatively quickly. We need decades to transition - if we're not prepared, it would be catastrophic for our civilization.

I'm not a dice roller w/ stuff like that.
 
BartenderElite said:
AOC is immersed in this stuff. She gets a lot of unwarranted ridicule from the right, but she thinks through all of the details on this and has sound reasoning for everything.

It's easier to marginalize someone than it is to actually counter their ideas w/ better ones. She's thinking with generational responsibility in mind.
Click to expand...

She doesn't know what a garbage disposal is...


This is a woman that is pushing a major idea that would upend the US socially and economically (The New Green Deal) and yet she hasn't got a fucking clue what she's talking about. Do you think she's got a clue what's involved in making high speed rail work in the US? Do you think she's even the least bit bothered by California's disastrous failure to try and build a high speed rail line?

190212-california-high-speed-train-bridge-ew-549p_237d1bc80edbdf1ef970991958b16323.nbcnews-fp-1200-630-1080x630.jpg


That's a 'monument' to the disaster of high speed rail in California.

I have better ideas, and others like me have them too. We do natural gas (cheap with fracking) and nuclear power for energy. This allows the transition from coal and gives miners jobs mining uranium and thorium. The US alone has more than 1000 years worth of these materials to make energy in abundance. The waste products can be safely reprocessed and / or stored basically forever. Natural gas gives us the flexibility to meet grid demand above base load.
We move to fuel cell cars using hydrogen, cracked methane, or ammonia to have zero emissions there.
We dump solar and wind entirely as they are expensive, unworkable non-solutions.

Going to natural gas for heating homes and as an option for cooking is going to reduce CO2 over heating oil, pellet stoves, etc. Unlike pellet stoves (used widely in supposedly "Green" leading countries like Germany), natural gas leaves no ash to remove. It doesn't produce huge amounts of VOC during production, and we don't have to chop down forests the size of Texas to get the raw material to make it.

AOC couldn't think her way out of a wet paper sack. She's a moron, and you are a moron if you're listening to her and her ilk.
 
anatta said:
the pricing allows for more extraction. You can't extract if the price to do so is greater then the market will bear.

Fraking is a whole new area. Look at the Dakotas.
When oil prices are high, they do a lot of fracking, when they are low ( like now) they don't

The pricing drives the extractions -same world wide. https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2017/3/1/how-its-quite-possible-canada-has-worlds-largest-o/
Alberta’s recoverable reserves of oil (oil sands) are, still conservatively, the largest on Earth by far, and are larger than those of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined, as shown in Table .
Click to expand...

Fracking is probably the best one can do for the extraction of oil, and even that is upsetting the plates, and creating more earthquakes.
 
Old Trapper said:
Fracking is probably the best one can do for the extraction of oil, and even that is upsetting the plates, and creating more earthquakes.
Click to expand...
that's insane .fracking can't move tectonic plates
they are over 50 miles thick,
frack doesn't even induce small earthquakes .
The U.S. Geological Survey has maintained that fracking is not the cause of most induced earthquakes.
Click to expand...
 
Old Trapper said:
Just what do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with wind, solar, or even oil? Then do affect the extraction of vegetable oils from plants, however, that does not include crude oil.

And being the dumb f**k repugnant one you are science is something to avoid.



If not for fracking, a process developed by the "gobblement", where would the oil industry be? Then you add to the equation the growth of wind, and solar, and you have the answer to your mindless question.



Ahhh yes, trying to promote a right wing thumb up your ass habit again.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have to ask how the Laws of Thermodynamics come into play just shows how ignorant you are on the topic. I don't mind educating you.

The first two laws of thermodynamics come into play and rather than giving your the formal definition, I will dumb it down for you because clearly you need it

First law of Thermodynamics: you can’t get something for nothing.

Second law of Thermodynamics: You can’t even break even.

We can use firewood as an example of energy to illustrated the first two laws of thermodynamics. You light wood on fire and it releases stored heat energy for warming your body and cooking your food. As the wood burns, it turns to ash which is no longer a source of energy in the form of heat. That is what we call entropy.

Now we can dig deeper into this example by pointing out that when it comes to heating ones home, certain types of woods are better than others because they are more dense. For example, hickory, white oak, maple and red oak are very desirable for heating ones home as they have very high density's and store much more energy than softer woods like pine, poplar and basswood. The latter will definitely burn, but it will burn faster, produce more ash and require more wood relative to the hard woods.

Read this article about energy density and it will explain it all to you. Whether you will understand it or not is an open question

https://www.masterresource.org/energy-density/energy-density-is-key/
 
T. A. Gardner said:
AOC hasn't got a clue. It's sort of the asking her, "Where does hamburger come from?" Her answer would be "The grocery store, silly! Everybody knows that..." Same thing here. In her world wishes come true and reality doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

She's the type that would go into a grocery store to buy chicken legs and ask were they the front or back legs.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then riddle me this: Why is it that nations and places using the most solar power have the highest per KWH rates?
Click to expand...

It depends what country you are looking at, and how the projects were financed, because they weren't all financed the same.

The IAEA provides those answers in their report...that you didn't bother to click through to read in the article (your laziness showing again):

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

...

The IEA says that new utility-scale solar projects now cost $30-60/MWh in Europe and the US and just $20-40/MWh in China and India, where “revenue support mechanisms” such as guaranteed prices are in place.

These costs “are entirely below the range of LCOE [levelised costs] for new coal-fired power plants” and “in the same range” as the operating cost of existing coal plants in China and India, the IEA says. This is shown in the chart below.

...

“The IEA’s main scenario has 43 [percent] more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20 [to] 50 [percent] cheaper than thought.”
Click to expand...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea
 
anatta said:
that's insane .fracking can't move tectonic plates
they are over 50 miles thick,
Click to expand...

More ignorance. Fracking removes the oil between the plates, or rocks, and thus there is no barrier there to prevent an earthquake. Similar activities happen when the ground water is removed causing sink holes.

frack doesn't even induce small earthquakes .
Click to expand...

You do know that in every instance where fracking is used earthquakes increase, right?

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/does-prod...s_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
 
LV426 said:
It depends what country you are looking at, and how the projects were financed, because they weren't all financed the same.

The IAEA provides those answers in their report...that you didn't bother to click through to read in the article:

In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Every leader in the use of solar tops the list for highest cost per KWH. Also, if you don't factor in government subsidies and tax breaks, you are hiding the true cost of solar (or anything else). California leads the US in solar use. They also have the highest per KWH rates in the nation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top