Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

Into the Night said:
Understood. However, sources are valid or invalid. You can't just use any old Holy Link as a proof.
Click to expand...

If all one posts is a link, that's a valid observation.

However, if information is relayed and a link is appended, one cannot honestly summarily dismiss the information because of the source.
 
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...

And far dirtier than making solar panels, Moron
 
Rune said:
Prove it liar
Click to expand...

Easier done than said...

Last November, Japan’s Environment Ministry issued a stark warning: the amount of solar panel waste Japan produces every year will rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tons by 2040, and the nation has no plan for safely disposing of it.

Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

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).

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. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
Click to expand...
https://environmentalprogress.org/b...g e-waste dumps into drinking water supplies .

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.
Click to expand...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...hey-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#4ab27f11121c

Beyond the inefficient use of these resources to begin with (in the process of making crystalline silicon from silicon, as much as 80 percent of the raw silicon is lost), there are numerous human health concerns directly related to the manufacture and disposal of solar panels.

According to cancer biologist David H. Nguyen, PhD, toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic.
Click to expand...
https://fee.org/articles/solar-panels-produce-tons-of-toxic-waste-literally/

https://www.electrosmogprevention.o...r-panel-systems/health-risks-of-solar-panels/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/solar/the-mounting-solar-panel-waste-problem/

PV solar waste and chemical hazards from production are a bigger environmental threat than expanding nuclear power massively. That's how bad solar is. It's the equivalent of having batteries full of toxic metals and chemicals that can't be easily recycled and have a lifetime of 15 to 30 years then are disposed of by landfill.
 
Legion said:
If all one posts is a link, that's a valid observation.

However, if information is relayed and a link is appended, one cannot honestly summarily dismiss the information because of the source.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant whether the link is by itself or accompanies text.
Yes. One can honestly summarily dismiss the information because of the source.
The false authority fallacy is a real fallacy. You cannot force anyone to accept a source, either. You are not the king.
 
anatta said:
that's insane .fracking can't move tectonic plates
they are over 50 miles thick,
frack doesn't even induce small earthquakes .
Click to expand...

Wrong again moron.
The average frack is powerful enough to lift NYC.
Do you even know what tracking is, Retard?
 
Into the Night said:
It is irrelevant whether the link is by itself or accompanies text. One can honestly summarily dismiss the information because of the source.
Click to expand...

I disagree, for the reason previously stated.

Into the Night said:
The false authority fallacy is a real fallacy.
Click to expand...

I don't recall indicating that I believe otherwise, so why bring it up?

Into the Night said:
You cannot force anyone to accept a source, either. You are not the king.
Click to expand...

That's not my position, nor has it been.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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...
Click to expand...

Oil and coal are both subsidized, lying cunt.
 
Rune said:
Nope, STUPID.
Peak oil is the most pressing issue of all time.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'peak oil'. This is another meaningless buzzword.

Oil is a renewable resource. See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this chemical reaction exist naturally underground. All you need is carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, heat, and pressure, and the presence of iron to act as a catalyst. Everything needed for the reaction to run naturally is already underground.

Wells pumped dry can be capped, and they fill with oil again. It isn't coming from 'nearby fields'. Entire fields can be capped and recycled in this way.

Oil can be found literally anywhere you want to drill for it, if you want to go deep enough. It comes closest to the surface near the edges of tectonic plates, typically, especially where spreading action is taking place. Such places as the Mideast, the North Sea, the Alaskan fields, off the coast of the SOTC (formerly California), the Caribbean and the gulf coast of the United States, etc. There are exceptions, of course, such as the oil fields in the central U.S.

Oil right now is CHEAP. We are practically awash in oil.


To make an issue in an effort to control energy markets is supporting fascism. Are you sure you want to do this?
 
Rune said:
Prove it you fucking liar
Click to expand...

Crude oil is currently trading at $35 a barrel, compared to running as high as $113 a barrel in 2008 and $105 in 2015. It dropped to $41 in the first year of the Trump administration. None of this is subsidies from the government.
By comparison, gold was $874 in 2008, and is now trading at $1978 (per oz, 20kt). Since gold cannot be printed by the government on a whim, it's a better indication of money. Thus:
In 2008, oil cost 0.129oz of gold per barrel, while today it's worth 0.0176 oz of gold per barrel.

We have plenty of oil. The price of oil on the market speaks for itself.

There. I've shown my poker hand. Now let's see yours.
 
Rune said:
Prove it liar
Click to expand...

This seems to be your go to hiding place when you are losing an argument.

Anatta is correct. Price is the result of a discover of supply and demand. That's how markets work.
Anatta is also correct that wind and solar require oil fuels to manufacture, produce, and install, and even to maintain.
Anatta is also correct that wind and solar are piddle power.

Where the whole argument on emissions false apart of course is that CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is. You can't create energy out of nothing.
 
anatta said:
the Green New Deal is insane.
Trump correctly pointed out our Nat Gas has made the USA the largest reduction of carbon.

Biden wants us back in the Paris Accord -and can do it by XO
Click to expand...

Biden has as much chance of eliminating oil and gas as Trump has of making Mexico pay for the wall, paying down the debt, repeal and replace Obamacare, rebuilding infrastructure, prosecuting Hillary, or deporting all illegal immigrants.
 
Into the Night said:
Crude oil is currently trading at $35 a barrel, compared to running as high as $113 a barrel in 2008 and $105 in 2015. It dropped to $41 in the first year of the Trump administration. None of this is subsidies from the government.
By comparison, gold was $874 in 2008, and is now trading at $1978 (per oz, 20kt). Since gold cannot be printed by the government on a whim, it's a better indication of money. Thus:
In 2008, oil cost 0.129oz of gold per barrel, while today it's worth 0.0176 oz of gold per barrel.

We have plenty of oil. The price of oil on the market speaks for itself.

There. I've shown my poker hand. Now let's see yours.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of oil is not about peak. As you pointed out, oil prices go up and down. That is a bad thing
Fossil fuels are bad for all life. They are bad for the planet. The sooner we get rid of them, the better off we will be.
We will not get rid of them by 2035, but trying will help us all.
The actors in controlling oil prices are not nice people. They are middle east potentates and greedy oilmen. They care about profits and working clean costs profits. They fight it like it is death. Now they have convinced rightys that regulation is bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top