Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

[Into the Night]

It really does take cartoons or the equivalent to get Democrats to understand anything.

A hopeful statement! They won't understand that map either, I'm afraid.

 

[Into the Night]

No he wants to waste money on wind and solar that isn't the future.

It is, but not as a sole source of energy. People are free to buy what energy sources they want to buy. Neither they nor you can dictate energy markets.

Nuclear is

Nuclear energy is already here. It is not the future either. It is the present. Like any other source of energy, it is part of the energy markets. Dictating markets is fascism.

he doesn't want to do a damned thing for that.

Quite true. He is scared of the nuclear fuel. While not a renewable source of energy, the fuel used by these things is exceptionally small. Used fuel rods don't have to be stored in ponds either. They can be used in a different type of reactor that makes use of the low level energy spent fuel rods give off. The waste from that reactor can be put into any landfill. It is no longer putting anything beyond background radiation.

No they won't, further they aren't green or renewable energy. The investment to production ratio is extremely low. Unlike nuclear that could replace coal and natgas.

It will not replace coal, oil, or natural gas. Oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. Coal might also be so as well, we just don't know. All three of these fuels are very cheap, which means there is plenty of 'em. The energy market will decide, not dictats from government.

Our government shouldn't be wasting money on moronic hippy pipedreams.

Agreed. They have no authority in this area. They do not have authority to dictate energy markets, nor to waste taxpayer money on subsidizing any source of energy. Nothing in the Constitution ever gave them that authority.

People who know nothing about energy shouldn't be in charge of it.

Agreed. This includes, of course, Hunter Biden.

It isn't. You can do it with nuclear. Wasting money on party favors like wind and solar is stupid.

Nuclear energy isn't practical for mobile power supplies, such as used on cars, trucks, or aircraft. The containment is simply too heavy and the nuclear fuel is a heavily controlled substance. Can you imagine the government freaking about people purifying nuclear fuel into weapons grade material?

Where do you think they get the materials to make windmills and solar power station? It's those exact same pits plus the refining of metals, alloys, and plastics that require fossil fuels.

Fossils aren't used for fuels. It is time to toss aside this mistaken idea. Fossils don't burn.
Oil and natural gas are excellent fuels. They are renewable fuels, they can burn clean, putting out only water and carbon dioxide, and are a compact and easily used source of power for mobile supplies as well as fixed power stations.
Coal is better suited to fixed power stations, but it can be used practically in some mobile applications as well, such as ships and railroads. Both of these are tending toward oil products now.

You are correct that oil is used to manufacture and ship solar panels and wind generators.

Why don't you live like a cave man instead of being so dependant on fossil fuels. Do you know how much petroleum went into producing whatever you are typing on?

He probably doesn't. Plastics are a pretty fundamental material these days. All of our electronics depends on them. Even home wiring depends on them. They are used for cases, insulation, protective coatings on circuit boards, seals and gaskets, plumbing, paints and stains, furniture, fasteners, tools, siding, glue to make plywood, OBX, and particleboard; whiteboards and markers, ...; we are surrounded by plastics. They are even used to make that bottle he is drinking his soda from.

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court exceeded their authority in this ruling. They do not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution does not give the president power to issue executive orders unless we give a liberal expansive interpretation of its powers.

The SC did not "change" the Constitution. It prohibited the president from exercising authority he does not have.

Actually, the president has bad attorneys. The president lost some of these cases about executive orders because the Administrative Procedures Act requires an explanation for his actions which was not provided.

 

[Flash]

Muslims were never banned. Denial of history.
DACA as an attempt by the Supreme Court to change the Constitution of the United States. Trump did not violate it. The Supreme Court did.

People from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The courts then blocked a second ban before it took effect. Then, in Doe v. Trump the court blocked his refugee ban.

 

[dukkha]

And the Constitution does not give the president power to issue executive orders unless we give a liberal expansive interpretation of its powers.

POTUS runs the executive -he can order it to do his will
POTUS is in charge of immigration enforcement -hence the travel ban -it's not a "muslim ban" not all Muslim nations were banned

The SC did not "change" the Constitution. It prohibited the president from exercising authority he does not have.

SCOTUS ruled on the "4 corners" of the order -and passed it once Trump cleaned it up

Actually, the president has bad attorneys. The president lost some of these cases about executive orders because the Administrative Procedures Act requires an explanation for his actions which was not provided.

that was Roberts, and if i recall just on the ACA?

 

[Arks&sparka]

It is, but not as a sole source of energy. People are free to buy what energy sources they want to buy. Neither they nor you can dictate energy markets.

The only way I think wind and solar have a future is if we get rid of the grid and people produce their own power.

Nuclear energy is already here. It is not the future either. It is the present. Like any other source of energy, it is part of the energy markets. Dictating markets is fascism.

nuclear energy is stuck in the Cold War. There is no development and no new production. Per investment dollar you get the greatest amount of return that makes it the future. Wind and solar is on the opposite end of that ratio. It cannot be the future it is simply unsustainable.

Quite true. He is scared of the nuclear fuel. While not a renewable source of energy, the fuel used by these things is exceptionally small. Used fuel rods don't have to be stored in ponds either. They can be used in a different type of reactor that makes use of the low level energy spent fuel rods give off. The waste from that reactor can be put into any landfill. It is no longer putting anything beyond background radiation.

The only thing that stands in the way of a breeder reactor, that is a reactor that depletes spent fuel rods, is an executive order from Jimmy Carter in April of 1971 that forbids using nuclear waste for any purpose. Once anybody does anything about that the gates will be open.

It will not replace coal, oil, or natural gas. Oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. Coal might also be so as well, we just don't know. All three of these fuels are very cheap, which means there is plenty of 'em. The energy market will decide, not dictats from government.

it is government dictates that are deciding.

Agreed. They have no authority in this area. They do not have authority to dictate energy markets, nor to waste taxpayer money on subsidizing any source of energy. Nothing in the Constitution ever gave them that authority.

Agreed. This includes, of course, Hunter Biden.

Nuclear energy isn't practical for mobile power supplies, such as used on cars, trucks, or aircraft. The containment is simply too heavy and the nuclear fuel is a heavily controlled substance. Can you imagine the government freaking about people purifying nuclear fuel into weapons grade material?

The only thing stopping cars from being fully electric is the battery. Once we get a battery with a solid state electrolyte, and it's capable of being recharged quickly the day of a gasoline powered car will be at an end. If you generate electricity with nuclear power that is powering the car with the electricity generated from nuclear power it doesn't have to be mobile. We just have to have a much more competent power grid.

Fossils aren't used for fuels. It is time to toss aside this mistaken idea. Fossils don't burn.
Oil and natural gas are excellent fuels. They are renewable fuels, they can burn clean, putting out only water and carbon dioxide, and are a compact and easily used source of power for mobile supplies as well as fixed power stations.

the term fossil fuel comes from the concept of digging them out of a rock formation. Natural gas comes out of a rock formation therefore it is a fossil fuel. I didn't say it was a fossil.

Coal is better suited to fixed power stations, but it can be used practically in some mobile applications as well, such as ships and railroads. Both of these are tending toward oil products now.

real lions use electricity generated by an onboard diesel powered generator that is more efficient if it wasn't we would still use steam locomotives we do not.

You are correct that oil is used to manufacture and ship solar panels and wind generators.

it is used in absolutely everything it is our lifeblood.

He probably doesn't. Plastics are a pretty fundamental material these days. All of our electronics depends on them. Even home wiring depends on them. They are used for cases, insulation, protective coatings on circuit boards, seals and gaskets, plumbing, paints and stains, furniture, fasteners, tools, siding, glue to make plywood, OBX, and particleboard; whiteboards and markers, ...; we are surrounded by plastics. They are even used to make that bottle he is drinking his soda from.

Coal is used in metal refining. If we stopped we would be reduced to the bronze age.

 

[IBDaMann]

You can cause earthquakes by pumping water into the ground. You can cause them by just walking around. They can even be measured. If you'll recall the Michelson-Morley experiment, this was actually one of their biggest problems to overcome. The device is also a very sensitive seismometer. It could sense people walking on the sidewalk outside the building. That's why they had to mount the thing on a granite slab floating in a pool of mercury.

The University of Washington seismometer network measures activity in the Seattle area. A football game produced this reading once, just from the fans cheering their team in the game.
https://www.washington.edu/news/blog/seahawks-and-fans-save-best-for-last-on-the-seismograph/

I am not disagreeing with your assertion that there are very sensitive devices for measuring vibrations. Take it as a given. Take it as a "fact."

My contention involves what constitutes an "earthquake."

I claim that a person might be able to feel the vibrations of a large vehicle driving by, perhaps even feel the vibrations of some water being pumped into the ground, but that neither of those are earthquakes. I also claim that anyone asserting that all vibrations are "earthquakes" is eliminating all reason to fear and panic over any possible "earthquake." If everything is an earthquake then nothing is an earthquake.

 

[IBDaMann]

Cool! Now all we need is a renewable ozone layer, coral reefs, glaciers and we're sittin' pretty!

Ozone is renewable. It is renewed every day. Let me guess, this is yet another area of Marxist misinformation that you absorbed as "thettled thienth." You are truly gullible.

Coral reefs are not in any danger. Why do you think they are? Wait, let me guess ... more Marxist propaganda that they are all disappearing, right? You aren't painting a pretty picture of yourself.

Glaciers? Oh wait, I get it. You think that glaciers only recede and die, that none are ever born and grow. You absorbed this Marxist misinformation as well. Now you know why you are a loser.

Science isn't your strong suit. Ask me how I know.

We are sitting pretty, by the way. You should be happy. Let me guess, you NEED to be miserable, right? Your Marxist slavemasters have told you what to believe and you must OBEY. I can see why it sucks to be you.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

More evidence wackadoodle threads generate mostly wackadoodle posts.

 

[IBDaMann]

And the Constitution does not give the president power to issue executive orders unless we give a liberal expansive interpretation of its powers.

Incorrect. the Constitution vests the President with full executive powers. He can make executive orders all day, all night, all week, all year.

Article. II, Section. 1 of the Constitution:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

 

[Sailor]

People from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The courts then blocked a second ban before it took effect. Then, in Doe v. Trump the court blocked his refugee ban.

Those are known terrorist countries. At least be a little honest here. That was a matter of national security, not racism or religion.

 

[Flash]

Incorrect. the Constitution vests the President with full executive powers. He can make executive orders all day, all night, all week, all year.

That is what I said. If we give a liberal expansive view of presidential power we can say he has that power; but, if we give a more limited interpretation of federal power he would not. Those executive orders also must comply with federal laws and/or the Constitution. Certainly presidents have issued many executive orders that were not necessary to faithfully execute federal laws or uphold the Constitution.

"Executive powers" is not defined and what it includes is based on court interpretations.

 

[IBDaMann]

A rule of thumb: If you're lying about nonexistent voter fraud, if you're limiting polling places, if you're forcing people to line up to vote in a pandemic, even the old and the infirm, then it seems you're basically admitting most Americans don't want you to be president.
- Dan Rather, Jun 22, 2020

If you are hero-worshiping a lying Leftist who libeled others with fabricated misinformation because he fancied himself the determinant of the truth, it is likely that you are lying about OTHER people being the wackadoodles.

Jussayn.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If you are hero-worshiping a lying Leftist who libeled others with fabricated misinformation because he fancied himself the determinant of the truth, it is likely that you are lying about OTHER people being the wackadoodles.

Jussayn.

You, being an well known wackadoodle, certainly have the expertise to know the difference....but requires a sane person to be factual and recognize not only the difference but why one is superior to the other.

BTW, Trump is dying in his Michigan rally speech on Fox. Clearly he's lost his appeal compared to even a month ago. Sad.

 

[Trump's Brain]

We have a renewable ozone layer. We couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to.
Coral also renews. It's a living thing.
Glaciers also renew. It snows.

Yes, you went to the Inhoff school of glacier management, I see

 

[IBDaMann]

That is what I said. If we give a liberal expansive view of presidential power we can say he has that power; but, if we give a more limited interpretation of federal power he would not.

... and I am saying that you are mistaken. There is no breadth of interpretation that prohibits any Executive power from the President. The Constitution is clear. All Executive power is vested in the President. All of it. There is no "except for" into which you could argue Executive orders fall. Any Executive order is Executive and is the President's vested power per the Constitution.

Those executive orders also must comply with federal laws and/or the Constitution.

Yes, and ...?

The President cannot violate the Constitution.
Congress cannot violate the Constitution.
The Supreme Court cannot violate the Constitution.

Congress makes the laws.
The President executes the laws via executive orders.
The Supreme Court applies the law in cases involving laws.

Certainly presidents have issued many executive orders that were not necessary to faithfully execute federal laws or uphold the Constitution.

The only Executive orders issued were considered necessary to faithfully execute Federal laws or uphold the Constitution ... except some of those issued by Obama.

"Executive powers" is not defined and what it includes is based on court interpretations.

It is not based on court interpretation. It is based on State interpretation.

"Executive Powers" are just as defined as the word "execute." You could argue that any word is only defined so much. The Constitution provides sufficient context for "Executive Power" to be sufficiently defined.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Ammonia has the same BTU as always. It is also dangerous to handle. That won't work.
Hydrogen has the same BTU as always. It will also require high pressure tanks to be a practical fuel source in cars (dangerous!).
Controlled fusion might happen, but since this reaction is effectively creating a small star, containing that thing and putting it in a bottle of some kind so you can extract power from it and get fuel into it is not exactly an easy task. It probably will never be a practical mobile power supply for things like cars and trucks due to the requirements of a containment system.

Time does not change any of this.

Ammonia is a $60 billion industry already, so the handling and transportation aspects are extremely well.known already. This paper in Science describes in detail how green ammonia can be produced.

Ammonia—a renewable fuel made from sun, air, and water—could power the globe without carbon

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ir-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

 

[IBDaMann]

You, being an well known wackadoodle, ...

Nope. You see? Right here you are living up to your reputation as someone who aspires to be a global-scale liar.

...but requires a sane person to be factual and recognize not only the difference but why one is superior to the other.

... says the cognitively challenged driveller who is worse than Joe Biden at distinguishing between people.

BTW, Trump is dying in his Michigan rally speech on Fox.

Nope. You are clearly lying. I see that as a common theme with you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, you went to the Inhoff school of glacier management, I see

You dropped out of high school I see.

 

[Into the Night]

And the Constitution does not give the president power to issue executive orders unless we give a liberal expansive interpretation of its powers.

Yes it does. See Articles I and II.

The SC did not "change" the Constitution. It prohibited the president from exercising authority he does not have.

The SC did try to change the Constitution. Trump does have that authority. See Articles I and II.

Actually, the president has bad attorneys.

Irrelevant.

The president lost some of these cases about executive orders because the Administrative Procedures Act requires an explanation for his actions which was not provided.

The Administrative Procedures Act is not the Constitution of the United States.

Like usual, you are denying the Constitution of the United States and trying to place the supreme court as an oligarchy over the Constitution.