Lying Joe Biden & the Dems to eliminate fossil fuels making America Energy Dependent

T. A. Gardner said:
One thing overlooked here is that if you eliminate fossil fuels as fuels, you still need them to manufacture a whole plethora of other stuff. The problem with that is the "other stuff" represent only a small fraction of the total current production of fuels. When you eliminate fossil fuels as fuel, then the remaining smaller fraction of uses will rise precipitously in cost due to the smaller market size for their product. That in turn means everything from plastics, to medicines (yes some use derivatives of fossil fuels in their manufacture), to whatever, are all going to become more expensive.

Going to wind and solar is utterly and completely stupid beyond belief. If that is what you are arguing for, you are a retard and scientific illiterate denier of facts and reality.
Click to expand...

Nutberg was outed as a scientific illiterate years ago.
 
If we eliminate all coal production, we eliminate the US steel industry. Without metallurgical (aka coke) coal, we can't make steel. The alternatives to coke coal are expensive and transition could run as much as a trillion dollars. So, the steel industry goes away.

Of note, one of Biden's first actions caused a steel plant in Pennsylvania to drop plans to expand their coke production and in turn steel production that they started during Trump's administration.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If we eliminate all coal production, we eliminate the US steel industry. Without metallurgical (aka coke) coal, we can't make steel. The alternatives to coke coal are expensive and transition could run as much as a trillion dollars. So, the steel industry goes away.

Of note, one of Biden's first actions caused a steel plant in Pennsylvania to drop plans to expand their coke production and in turn steel production that they started during Trump's administration.
Click to expand...

All coal production. Who advocated that? There are uses for it that can not be easily replaced. However, there are lots of steel producers not using coal. or are in the process of eliminating it. The technology exists. https://www.wired.com/story/how-steel-might-finally-kick-its-coal-habit/
 
Nordberg said:
All coal production. Who advocated that? There are uses for it that can not be easily replaced. However, there are lots of steel producers not using coal. or are in the process of eliminating it. The technology exists. https://www.wired.com/story/how-steel-might-finally-kick-its-coal-habit/
Click to expand...

Biden has repeatedly stated he wants to close down all coal fired electric plants in the US. As these use the lion's share of production, this will not only massacre the coal industry but it will drive the price of those remaining uses up.

usage_charbon_graph9_en.png


Going to electric arc furnaces costs billions in infrastructure investments, then there's the problem of where the electricity comes from. Wind and solar sure as hell aren't going to supply it. Steel mills run 24/7 not just in the daytime. So, where do we get a cheap replacement for coal?

Then there's the increasing use of pozzolan in concrete production. Pozzolan is made from fly ash left over from burning coal for energy. The advantage is that it lowers the CO2 output from concrete production far more than the CO2 produced in burning coal for energy production so there's a net gain in lowering CO2 through the relationship of the two. Pozzolan also lowers the cost of concrete / cement production so there's a win all around.

https://www.concretedecor.net/departments/building-with-concrete/the-demise-of-fly-ash/

You see, retards like our senile President can't connect the dots--or draw a clock...

f4y45x42ail41.jpg


and instead is doing what his anti-science, technology illiterate, radical Leftist staff are telling him to do. Fuck Joke Biden!
 
Last edited:
Green energy makes you completely independent. He wants to close down coal plants. In order to do that, you need to have green replacements.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If we eliminate all coal production, we eliminate the US steel industry. Without metallurgical (aka coke) coal, we can't make steel. The alternatives to coke coal are expensive and transition could run as much as a trillion dollars. So, the steel industry goes away.

Of note, one of Biden's first actions caused a steel plant in Pennsylvania to drop plans to expand their coke production and in turn steel production that they started during Trump's administration.
Click to expand...

Which means, of course, more steel will have to be imported again.
 
Nordberg said:
Green energy makes you completely independent. He wants to close down coal plants. In order to do that, you need to have green replacements.
Click to expand...

Ah...the usual mindless chant. The only fuel that's green is fresh grass and fresh vegetation, which doesn't burn well.

You're not going to be able to power anything significant with wind and solar. These are the most expensive methods of producing electricity there is, watt for watt.
Piddle power will NOT provide the necessary energy for a steel plant not a source of carbon.
 
Nordberg said:
Green energy makes you completely independent. He wants to close down coal plants. In order to do that, you need to have green replacements.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Solar and wind are not only grossly inefficient and expensive, but you become more dependent on alternative sources to them to make up for that inefficiency. Companies that depend on reliable electric power spend more to install UPS systems and back up diesel generators to ensure reliable power when the grid 'hiccups' or goes down. Places like Germany have already proven that's the case.
Right now, most US used solar panels come from places like China, while Spain and other countries supply the wind generation equipment. How does that make the US independent? Since there will be an on-going need for these as they have relatively short (by industry standards) lifetimes on the order of 20 years, and often less, we will be continuously buying replacement parts and systems to keep the grid up. That creates more dependence not less.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong! Solar and wind are not only grossly inefficient and expensive,
Click to expand...

So was petroleum when cars were first on the road. (Not that YOU would know ANYTHING about history).

How do you think new technologies come to the fore? Do you think the first computers were as powerful as they are today?

Some of us actually have solar on our homes so, unlike you, we know what it's like. You don't. But you spout your nonsense in spades like you know something.

Why don't you go get a degree that forces you to actually MAKE something and then come back and tell us how technology advances. I'll wait the 20 or so years it will take you.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
So was petroleum when cars were first on the road. (Not that YOU would know ANYTHING about history).

How do you think new technologies come to the fore? Do you think the first computers were as powerful as they are today?

Some of us actually have solar on our homes so, unlike you, we know what it's like. You don't. But you spout your nonsense in spades like you know something.

Why don't you go get a degree that forces you to actually MAKE something and then come back and tell us how technology advances. I'll wait the 20 or so years it will take you.
Click to expand...

Solar has always been, and always will be inefficient and expensive. The PV process has been around for over a century and it has never been adopted on a widescale because of that. But now, we have Greentards on the radical Left who are anti-science and engineering illiterates using politics to push dogma and personal agendas over sound science and economics.

Solar on your home is nothing but a cost shifting scheme. You are paying for 20+ years of electricity in buying the panels and having them installed instead of just buying it from a commercial source. Worse, the only way that scheme even works is the government has to give huge subsidies and tax breaks to the buyer to even make the economics work. Without those subsidies and tax breaks the panels would cost more than the cost of electricity bought from a utility would.

Why don't you get a degree that actually taught you something?

Here's a simple question.

Where do we get our power when the sun goes down and the wind isn't blowing?
 
Into the Night said:
Doesn't make steel. Steel has carbon in it, not hydrogen. Then, of course, I am talking to someone that thinks cobalt is in car parts.
Click to expand...

Cobalt is in ICE automobiles. I gave you the proof with the industries that are using it. You simply reject any and all evidence that disputes your incorrect assumptions. The steel manufacturers are eliminating coal in steel production. facts were given to you. Apparently, your mental blind spots kept you from understanding or even reading them.
 
Nordberg said:
Cobalt is in ICE automobiles. I gave you the proof with the industries that are using it. You simply reject any and all evidence that disputes your incorrect assumptions. The steel manufacturers are eliminating coal in steel production. facts were given to you. Apparently, your mental blind spots kept you from understanding or even reading them.
Click to expand...

Name a functioning economy that didnt use fossil fuels to achieve it's success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top