Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

People from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
People of a nation is not a religion. Redefinition fallacy. Trump has authority to limit or ban travel to or from any nation. Congress can override this, of course, but the supreme court cannot.
The courts then blocked a second ban before it took effect.
It does not have that authority. It cannot change the Constitution of the United States.
Then, in Doe v. Trump the court blocked his refugee ban.
It does not have that authority either. The court cannot change the Constitution of the United States.
 
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.
Why get rid of the grid? People already produce their own power.
nuclear energy is stuck in the Cold War.
Nope. Modern plants are more reliable and safer.
There is no development and no new production.
Wrong on both. A new plant was just built in Tennessee and came online in 2016. Two plants are under construction right now in the United States.
Per investment dollar you get the greatest amount of return that makes it the future.
Random number. Argument from randU fallacy. Nuclear plants can be costly, and have risks that people don't like to accept (true, they are illiterate, but that does not change things). You don't get to dictate energy markets. You are not the king.
Wind and solar is on the opposite end of that ratio.
Irrelevant. If people want to buy that form of energy, they are free to do so. You don't get to dictate energy markets.
It cannot be the future it is simply unsustainable.
It is quite sustainable. People are buying solar and wind energy plants.
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.
An executive order can be nullified by another executive order. Not a problem.
it is government dictates that are deciding.
No, it was Jimmy Carter dictats that are deciding. He exceeded his authority. He didn't have authority to meddle with energy markets.
The only thing stopping cars from being fully electric is the battery.
Nope. We have electric cars. They have a range similar to gasoline cars on a single charge.
Once we get a battery with a solid state electrolyte,
Already have 'em. Lithium oxide batteries, lithium metal batteries, common zinc, nicad, and even some lead-acid cells use solid electrolytes. Lithium metal and lithium oxide batteries use a paper layer soaked with electrolyte.
and it's capable of being recharged quickly
Sorry dude. Ohm's law gets in your way. You need to charge the battery of an electric car with the same joules to move the same distance. This is just mechanics. You can't change that. You can't put that many joules into a battery in a short space of time. The wire required would be so thick you could never lift it. There are no contacts capable of handling that kind of current.

If you increase the voltage to reduce the current requirements, you are dealing with several thousand volts. Not a user friendly connection.

Batteries themselves are also a resistor. They only accept a charge so fast. This is known as the internal resistance of the battery. It limits how fast you can charge and discharge it. Currently, the battery with the lowest internal resistance is the lead-acid battery. There is no way to charge even this battery with enough power for an electric car. This battery is also heavy. It is lead, after all.

Lithium batteries have a high internal resistance. Their big advantage is that they are made of light materials. This is ideal for portable electronic devices like cell phones. They are popular in electric cars too in order to save weight, reducing the energy required to move the vehicle.
the day of a gasoline powered car will be at an end.
Not likely. Gasoline has the highest BTU per given volume of any fuel. This makes it a good fuel for small tanks. Diesel oil and kerosene has the highest BTU per given weight. This makes it a good fuel for large aircraft, ships, and trucks.
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.
It takes too long to refuel (recharge) an electric car. That cannot change, even if the car is equipped with lead-acid cells.
We just have to have a much more competent power grid.
Wait...didn't you just say you want to get rid of the electrical grid??

We DO have a well designed electrical grid. A far cry from the days where the grid was susceptible to such blackouts like what hit most of the east coast of the United States due to a single flashover fault. Today's electrical grids are much more resilient, and are necessary for getting power from a power plant to the user. This does not include the SOTC, however, since they do not maintain their electrical grid properly.
the term fossil fuel comes from the concept of digging them out of a rock formation.
Nope. A fossil is an image of an animal or plant in stone. Fossils don't burn.
Natural gas comes out of a rock formation
Nope. Natural gas can be found in swamps, landfills, compost piles, underground, or manufactured by man. It is not associated with any rock formation.
therefore it is a fossil fuel.
Nope. It's a gas. There is no image of a plant or animal possible.
I didn't say it was a fossil.
If you call it a fossil fuel, you are saying it is a fossil.
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.
We still use steam locomotives. I used to drive one myself when I last worked on a railroad. That machine is still in service. Nice little locomotive. It used diesel fuel to fire the boiler. I know several railroads that still use coal fired steam locomotives. We use steam in power plants still too. Nuclear power plants use steam to power the generators. So do oil and coal fired power plants. There are even steamships still plying the waters here and there, including nuclear powered ships.
it is used in absolutely everything it is our lifeblood.
Oil products are very useful. It's a renewable fuel too. So is natural gas.
Coal is used in metal refining.
It is also used as a fuel in running power plants. It is also used in industry as a fuel. Still pretty cheap. It is not only used for smelting iron and other metals, it is also used to make steel.
 
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.

So you are arguing for a cutoff value before calling an 'earthquake'. What cutoff value do you want to use?
 
Incorrect. the Constitution vests the President with full executive powers. He can make executive orders all day, all night, all week, all year.

Flash is well known for denying the Constitution. His attitude is that the Supreme Court is an oligarchy with total power, and that it can designate what is in the Constitution.
 
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.

Executive powers are defined. See Article II. The supreme court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution. See Article III. Only the States have the authority to interpret or change the Constitution. They own it.
 
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

Burning ammonia produces NOx, gasses that contribute to smog. It also a low energy fuel, a bit like hydrogen gas. It has 7987 BTU per pound. Gasoline has about 20,000 BTU per pound.

There is nothing wrong with carbon or carbon dioxide.
 
Burning ammonia produces NOx, gasses that contribute to smog. It also a low energy fuel, a bit like hydrogen gas. It has 7987 BTU per pound. Gasoline has about 20,000 BTU per pound.

There is nothing wrong with carbon or carbon dioxide.

Fuel cells do not burn ammonia, stop bullshitting. Ammonia has nine times the energy density of Li-ion batteries, and three times that of compressed hydrogen, creating potential as a carbon-free energy carrier. There is also one very important safety characteristic, ammonia can be detected by the human nose even at one part per million.

https://www.gencellenergy.com/markets-applications/off-grid-power/
 
If wind turbines followed Moore's Law, then an 8 megawatt six hundred foot offshore turbine would be about 3 foot tall!

Moore's law is a fallacy here. You keep bringing it up - you probably did the same thing w/ computers.

No. Wind energy is very young. It will evolve and advance in ways that you and I cannot imagine in our wildest dreams.

Wind and solar are a big part of our energy future. Oil is not.
 
Moore's law is a fallacy here. You keep bringing it up - you probably did the same thing w/ computers.

No. Wind energy is very young. It will evolve and advance in ways that you and I cannot imagine in our wildest dreams.

Wind and solar are a big part of our energy future. Oil is not.
how is it going to "evolve" materials? design? change the wind? space aliens?
when will it "evolve" - before or after we cripple our fossil fuel industry?

Hope for change of an energy source is not a sound policy - it's pie in the sky
 
So you are arguing for a cutoff value before calling an 'earthquake'. What cutoff value do you want to use?
The official IBDaCutoff is a 2.6 Surface wave magnitude (MS) over a 4km area. A large truck driving by won't be felt one kilometer away. It's not an earthquake. California regularly has large-area tremors that nobody notices because only sentivie equipment can detect them. They too are not earthquakes.

attachment.php
 
The official IBDaCutoff is a 2.6 Surface wave magnitude (MS) over a 4km area. A large truck driving by won't be felt one kilometer away. It's not an earthquake. California regularly has large-area tremors that nobody notices because only sentivie equipment can detect them. They too are not earthquakes.

attachment.php

I love it when socks talk to themselves. It's always a challenge to figure out if you are just lying to other members or if you are schizophrenic.
 
how is it going to "evolve" materials? design? change the wind? space aliens?
when will it "evolve" - before or after we cripple our fossil fuel industry?

Hope for change of an energy source is not a sound policy - it's pie in the sky

No - it's based on historical models of exponential advancement in other areas of technology.

And no one is suggesting making a full-scale transition without assurances. But a moon shot effort in developing alternatives and investment in R&D would be nice.
 
I love it when socks talk to themselves. It's always a challenge to figure out if you are just lying to other members or if you are schizophrenic.
I worry when the Joe Bidens of the world become unable to distinguish between people and start thinking of their sisters as their wives. I hope you aren't doing that with your daughter.
 
Moore's law is a fallacy here. You keep bringing it up - you probably did the same thing w/ computers.

No. Wind energy is very young. It will evolve and advance in ways that you and I cannot imagine in our wildest dreams.

Wind and solar are a big part of our energy future. Oil is not.

Give me a break ffs, I was in IT for over 30 years. I have a very tolerance for bullshit!
 
Moore's law is a fallacy here. You keep bringing it up - you probably did the same thing w/ computers.

No. Wind energy is very young. It will evolve and advance in ways that you and I cannot imagine in our wildest dreams.

Wind and solar are a big part of our energy future. Oil is not.

I am done here, you just can't educate fools. Ī
 
Back
Top