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

[Saint Guinefort]

California will be a great test

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/09/can-california-really-make-power-grid-100-green/

No modern economy was built on renewable energy sources and none will be maintained by them either. BTW drop the drama queenery bullshit

So you agree you don't know anything about the chemistry of coal and oil and how they might be bad fuels. Got it.

Maybe I'm biased because my second postdoc was related to transportation fuels (specifically H2 storage for fuel cell vehicles) plus my background in organic geochemistry and all the research I did on coal chemistry puts me in a position to actually know what might be problematic about continued use of these fuels.

While I readily agree that right now renewables will not scale as easily as fossil fuels, I also know enough of the history of fossil fuels to know that much of our economy has been built specifically to accomodate fossil fuels giving them an "edge" in competition. The market place isn't really "free" in that our infrastructure has been developed solely for fossil fuels. Of course fossil fuels will be "cheaper". Until they aren't and that day will come.

One thing you learn in your economic geology class is the idea that people will pursue a resource until the quality of the resource gets worse and worse and more and more expensive. It happens literally with all non-renewable earth resources at some point.

You think you pay a lot at the gas pump now? Some day you won't have enough money to fill your tank, oil will be so expensive.

And that doesn't even begin to touch the environmental impact of oil and coal extraction and utilization.

 

[Yakuda]

So you agree you don't know anything about the chemistry of coal and oil and how they might be bad fuels. Got it.

Maybe I'm biased because my second postdoc was related to transportation fuels (specifically H2 storage for fuel cell vehicles) plus my background in organic geochemistry and all the research I did on coal chemistry puts me in a position to actually know what might be problematic about continued use of these fuels.

While I readily agree that right now renewables will not scale as easily as fossil fuels, I also know enough of the history of fossil fuels to know that much of our economy has been built specifically to accomodate fossil fuels giving them an "edge" in competition. The market place isn't really "free" in that our infrastructure has been developed solely for fossil fuels. Of course fossil fuels will be "cheaper". Until they aren't and that day will come.

One thing you learn in your economic geology class is the idea that people will pursue a resource until the quality of the resource gets worse and worse and more and more expensive. It happens literally with all non-renewable earth resources at some point.

You think you pay a lot at the gas pump now? Some day you won't have enough money to fill your tank, oil will be so expensive.

And that doesn't even begin to touch the environmental impact of oil and coal extraction and utilization.

I never claimed to be an expert so you're pumping your chest for yourself not me. I dont give a shit if you have a PhD in biochemistry or brain surgery or fossil fuelology it's all just mental masturbation. The point remains you can't name a modern economy that wasnt built on and relies on fossil fuels. California is going to fuck itself up the ass and I for one can't wait, the problem is leftist want to fuck the rest of us the ass as well.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I never claimed to be an expert so you're pumping your chest for yourself not me

No, I'm establishing that I know more about this topic than you do in an effort to point out your errors in assessment.

I dont give a shit if you have a PhD in biochemistry or brain surgery or fossil fuelology it's all just mental masturbation.

So in your life you OFTEN debate things you don't understand?

The point remains you can't name a modern economy that wasnt built on and relies on fossil fuels. California is going to fuck itself up the ass and I for one can't wait, the problem is leftist want to fuck the rest of us the ass as well.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

(Sorry to put Latin there on ya, I know you'll struggle to figure out what it means. But trust me, you just had your behind handed to you on this point.)

 

[Yakuda]

No, I'm establishing that I know more about this topic than you do in an effort to point out your errors in assessment.



So in your life you OFTEN debate things you don't understand?



Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

(Sorry to put Latin there on ya, I know you'll struggle to figure out what it means. But trust me, you just had your behind handed to you on this point.)

Anyone who has to waste an entire post telling me how smart they aren't probably isnt..

Just name a modern economy not built and reliant upon fossil fuels.

 

[Into the Night]

"Coal is called a fossil fuel"
Dept of Energy

"Coal, oil, and natural gas are examples of fossil fuels."
National Geographic

Coal is not a fossil. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

 

[Into the Night]

So you agree you don't know anything about the chemistry of coal and oil

Coal is not chemistry. Oil is not chemistry.

and how they might be bad fuels. Got it.

Were they caught reading porn magazine out behind the woodshed?

Maybe I'm biased because my second postdoc was related to transportation fuels (specifically H2 storage for fuel cell vehicles) plus my background in organic geochemistry and all the research I did on coal chemistry puts me in a position to actually know what might be problematic about continued use of these fuels.

Making up more stories about yourself again. You are a nothing.

While I readily agree that right now renewables will not scale as easily as fossil fuels,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Oil is renewable. Natural gas is renewable. Coal is unknown, but probably renewable. Nuclear is not renewable. ALL of these are a LOT cheaper than solar or wind power and they are available 24/7.

I also know enough of the history of fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. There is no history on using them as fuel.

to know that much of our economy has been built specifically to accomodate fossil fuels giving them an "edge" in competition.

There are no fossil fuels in any economy.

The market place isn't really "free" in that our infrastructure has been developed solely for fossil fuels.

There is no infrastructure for fossils as fuel. Fossils aren't used as fuel.

Of course fossil fuels will be "cheaper".

Fossils aren't used as fuel. There is no price for fossils as fuel.

Until they aren't and that day will come.

Vacuous fallacy.

One thing you learn in your economic geology class

'economic geology class'?????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WTF shit are you making up now???????!?

is the idea that people will pursue a resource until the quality of the resource gets worse and worse and more and more expensive.

Oil is oil. Natural gas is natural gas. Coal is coal. There is no 'quality issue'.

It happens literally with all non-renewable earth resources at some point.

Oil and natural gas are both renewable.

You think you pay a lot at the gas pump now? Some day you won't have enough money to fill your tank, oil will be so expensive.

It already is, thanks to dollar devaluation and Biden fucking up the oil market. Nothing to do with the oil in the Earth.

And that doesn't even begin to touch the environmental impact of oil and coal extraction and utilization.

Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I never claimed to be an expert so you're pumping your chest for yourself not me. I dont give a shit if you have a PhD in biochemistry or brain surgery or fossil fuelology it's all just mental masturbation. The point remains you can't name a modern economy that wasnt built on and relies on fossil fuels. California is going to fuck itself up the ass and I for one can't wait, the problem is leftist want to fuck the rest of us the ass as well.

California has already fucked itself in the ass. People don't like to live in dictatorships. They are fleeing if they can.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I'm establishing that I know more about this topic than you do in an effort to point out your errors in assessment.

No. You are establishing that you like to make up stories about yourself to try to puff yourself up. You are a nothing.

So in your life you OFTEN debate things you don't understand?

This is YOUR problem.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

(Sorry to put Latin there on ya, I know you'll struggle to figure out what it means. But trust me, you just had your behind handed to you on this point.)

Fallacy fallacy. Mantra 40a.

 

[Into the Night]

Anyone who has to waste an entire post telling me how smart they aren't probably isnt..

Just name a modern economy not built and reliant upon fossil fuels.

Capitalism. There is no such thing as a 'fossil fuel'. Fossils aren't used as fuel.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Anyone who has to waste an entire post telling me how smart they aren't probably isnt..

Just name a modern economy not built and reliant upon fossil fuels.

I've already posted more science in the last few posts in response to you than you have. So let me see what you have. I mean, IF you think you understand ANYTHING about this.

C'mon. Show me. You got it? Nahh, you got nothing.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

No. You are establishing that you like to make up stories about yourself to try to puff yourself up. You are a nothing.

This is YOUR problem.

Fallacy fallacy. Mantra 40a.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why deny ourselves the technology we have today? We have a lot of really cool non-fossil fuels available to us now that the Romans didn't have. Why deny that?



Cart before the horse. Our economy was largely structured around fossil fuels. Yes they have been great for our technological development. Nuclear bombs won WWII, doesn't mean we should use nuclear bombs in EVERY conflict.

We grow and learn. Why are you so against development of new technology just because you like one from the 18th century that we KNOW is damaging to the environment????



That's probably because you don't develop anything new in your job. You just do what others tell you to do. Those who actually DO develop new technologies know that we can always grow. And a lot of us know more about coal and oil than you ever will and know the stuff you don't understand about it.

Would you be interested to know that many coal fired power plants spew more radioactivity into the environment than a functioning nuclear power plant? Yeah. But you'd have to understand the chemistry of coal to know that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

I already knew that. So what? Both are alpha and beta emitters at low levels of radioactivity. You have to either eat or breathe in the dust for it to be dangerous to you. The same goes for spent nuclear fuel.
Of course, as I pointed out fly ash from coal plants can be used to make cement and concrete, and the radioactivity is sealed within it when it hardens posing ZERO hazard. Pozzolan also lowers the CO2 emitted overall by reducing how much comes from the cement making process which is much greater than that emitted from burning coal. That's a win. No use of coal for energy means more CO2 from cement manufacturing, and you can't end that process without major harm to the economy.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I already knew that. So what? Both are alpha and beta emitters at low levels of radioactivity. You have to either eat or breathe in the dust for it to be dangerous to you. The same goes for spent nuclear fuel.
Of course, as I pointed out fly ash from coal plants can be used to make cement and concrete, and the radioactivity is sealed within it when it hardens posing ZERO hazard. Pozzolan also lowers the CO2 emitted overall by reducing how much comes from the cement making process which is much greater than that emitted from burning coal. That's a win. No use of coal for energy means more CO2 from cement manufacturing, and you can't end that process without major harm to the economy.

But you ignored the larger issue. Coal isn't just limited to fly ash problems. A lot of radioactive shit goes up the stack. But the key is that pretty much every toxic metal you can imagine is in coal. That's why when the fly ash ponds in places like Tennessee that gave way and contaminated a river are such a serious threat. These things put amazingly toxic materials not only into the flue gas going up the stack but also in the ash which can (and often DOES) make it into public waterways.

Burning coal is also thought to be quite highly associated with asthma.

And for all the complaints you lot make about Li mining coal and petroleum are infinitely more of a problem. There's simply more activity in that area and it often leaves scars.

Sure things are getting somewhat better but then you guys go and vote in GOP nominees who promise to ELIMINATE all the safety measures put in place to protect us from this stuff.

So just focusing on the radiation of the fly ash is missing the forest for one tree.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

But you ignored the larger issue. Coal isn't just limited to fly ash problems. A lot of radioactive shit goes up the stack. But the key is that pretty much every toxic metal you can imagine is in coal. That's why when the fly ash ponds in places like Tennessee that gave way and contaminated a river are such a serious threat. These things put amazingly toxic materials not only into the flue gas going up the stack but also in the ash which can (and often DOES) make it into public waterways.

Burning coal is also thought to be quite highly associated with asthma.

And for all the complaints you lot make about Li mining coal and petroleum are infinitely more of a problem. There's simply more activity in that area and it often leaves scars.

Sure things are getting somewhat better but then you guys go and vote in GOP nominees who promise to ELIMINATE all the safety measures put in place to protect us from this stuff.

So just focusing on the radiation of the fly ash is missing the forest for one tree.

You don't get it. Coal can be mostly eliminated over time. Existing fly ash deposits can be used for Pozzolan for a long time to come, getting rid of them. We still need coal for coking steel because for the short-term, electric arc furnaces are not economically viable to switch over to. That too will take time and a good, reliable, power source.

The bottom line is that we need to totally ditch wind and solar and go to natural gas and nuclear for mass power delivery that is clean and reliable. We couple that with hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia (made via the methane process) as portable fuels and ditch the stupidity of battery cars entirely. ICE vehicles can run on ammonia and hydrogen can be used with fuel cells. No need for a mass conversion at trillions of dollars for charging stations and disruption of the existing infrastructure.

What we are getting is the version told to liberal arts majors by their scientific and engineering illiterate professors and that will fuck everybody in the end. Worse, when it does, those same idiots will walk away from the wreckage like they weren't responsible leaving others to clean up the mess they created.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The bottom line is that we need to totally ditch wind and solar and go to natural gas and nuclear for mass power delivery

Nuclear scales nicely, certainly, but I'm curious why you want to throw out the window the nearly inexhaustible, extremely green renewables altogether. Is there something about sustainability that bothers you?

I mean I understand your concern over scaling the output, and indeed, renewables are well down on the curve for that. But technology develops...especially when we fund it. Why limit ourselves at the outset?

that is clean and reliable. We couple that with hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia (made via the methane process) as portable fuels

H2 isn't really going to make it. Certainly not as a main transportation fuel. Back in the early 2000's I was at a conference in Norway on transportation fuels. At that time the feeling was that if storage for H2 was improved fuel cell vehicles could become dominant technology. If not it would always be a niche. The intervening 20 years or so has proven it to be likely a niche. I still hold out hope for better storage but right now the only two systems (compressed gas or metal hydride) aren't going to really get this off the ground.

And using other hydrocarbons as a direct source for H2 (like the old methanol system Argonne was talking about years and years ago) it doesn't really help us that much since it still keeps us carbonized in the fuel sector and handling some of those things is really harder than you'd imagine and wouldn't work well for vehicle fueling stations.

and ditch the stupidity of battery cars entirely.

Why is it stupid? I mean I drive one every single day and have for years. Battery powered cars were actually here BEFORE ICE cars.

ICE vehicles can run on ammonia and hydrogen can be used with fuel cells.

vide supra. As for handling ammonia when fueling your car? Well, I am guessing that would be quite a tricky situation. NH3 is not a pleasant molecule.

No need for a mass conversion at trillions of dollars for charging stations and disruption of the existing infrastructure.

But you don't think changing over the fuel cell vehicles and establishing an infrastructure for hydrogen fueling stations isn't going to cost much? LOL

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nuclear scales nicely, certainly, but I'm curious why you want to throw out the window the nearly inexhaustible, extremely green renewables altogether. Is there something about sustainability that bothers you?

I mean I understand your concern over scaling the output, and indeed, renewables are well down on the curve for that. But technology develops...especially when we fund it. Why limit ourselves at the outset?

Because "renewables" aren't and they are grotesquely expensive. To match a single nuclear power plant, you need (this is rough but accurate enough as an example) about $1.5 trillion in PV panels and batteries. A new nuclear plant would cost between $20 and $40 billion to build. That's something like 30 to 50 times more money in solar than nuclear. Wind is a bit better but still cost prohibitive by comparison.

H2 isn't really going to make it. Certainly not as a main transportation fuel. Back in the early 2000's I was at a conference in Norway on transportation fuels. At that time the feeling was that if storage for H2 was improved fuel cell vehicles could become dominant technology. If not it would always be a niche. The intervening 20 years or so has proven it to be likely a niche. I still hold out hope for better storage but right now the only two systems (compressed gas or metal hydride) aren't going to really get this off the ground.

Ammonia has been a portable fuel for over half-a-century. It is no more dangerous than gasoline. Farmers handle large quantities safely daily. H2 could become a portable fuel too over time. There's no major reason it couldn't. Both can be built into existing infrastructure easily by comparison to charging stations. Add the proper tanks and pumps at a gas station and you're good.

And using other hydrocarbons as a direct source for H2 (like the old methanol system Argonne was talking about years and years ago) it doesn't really help us that much since it still keeps us carbonized in the fuel sector and handling some of those things is really harder than you'd imagine and wouldn't work well for vehicle fueling stations.

So long as that carbon isn't being released in the form of a gas, it's not an issue.

Why is it stupid? I mean I drive one every single day and have for years. Battery powered cars were actually here BEFORE ICE cars.

Anecdote isn't evidence. Battery cars have considerable drawbacks.

vide supra. As for handling ammonia when fueling your car? Well, I am guessing that would be quite a tricky situation. NH3 is not a pleasant molecule.

If farmers around the world can safely handle huge quantities of anhydrous ammonia, I think it can be safely handled at a gas station. It really is no more dangerous than gasoline is and we handle that safely.

But you don't think changing over the fuel cell vehicles and establishing an infrastructure for hydrogen fueling stations isn't going to cost much? LOL

No. Hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia only require addition to existing gas stations that over time would increase the number of pumps delivering those rather than gasoline. No need for masses of charging stations because the fueling time using these would be essentially the same as for gasoline. No waiting in line for hours to get a charger that takes 15 to 30 minutes at the low end to charge your car. Five minutes at a pump and you are on your way. Ammonia can even be carried like gasoline in extra cans or whatever so you can refuel anywhere, anytime unlike with a battery car.

 

[Into the Night]

Have someone read this to you and explain what it means you ignorant shit.https://www.clientearth.org/latest/...X7giHinKR49-h8C1P28xrFBjEGIqfNQxoCA7wQAvD_BwE Tell me what Biden did to elevate the price of gas. Zip, ,nothing. The same thing he did to lower it, asshole.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. RQAA. Biden never lowered fuel prices.

 

[Into the Night]

I've already posted more science in the last few posts in response to you than you have. So let me see what you have. I mean, IF you think you understand ANYTHING about this.

C'mon. Show me. You got it? Nahh, you got nothing.

You deny and discard science. You have already discarded the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no 'science of fossil fuel'. Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel.

 

[AProudLefty]

You deny and discard science. You have already discarded the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no 'science of fossil fuel'. Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel.

"Fossil fuel" doesn't mean fossils are used as fuel, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

But you ignored the larger issue. Coal isn't just limited to fly ash problems. A lot of radioactive shit goes up the stack. But the key is that pretty much every toxic metal you can imagine is in coal. That's why when the fly ash ponds in places like Tennessee that gave way and contaminated a river are such a serious threat. These things put amazingly toxic materials not only into the flue gas going up the stack but also in the ash which can (and often DOES) make it into public waterways.

Since YOU are radioactive (and so it everyone else!), you are beset by your own fear. Obviously, you don't know anything about radioactive materials or the effects of ionizing radiation.

Burning coal is also thought to be quite highly associated with asthma.

Yeah, I've heard that too. Doesn't associate. There is no significant corollary.

And for all the complaints you lot make about Li mining coal and petroleum are infinitely more of a problem.

Define The Problem.

There's simply more activity in that area and it often leaves scars.

Define The Scar.

Sure things are getting somewhat better but then you guys go and vote in GOP nominees who promise to ELIMINATE all the safety measures put in place to protect us from this stuff.

No one is trying to eliminate sensible safety procedures, including mining safety.

So just focusing on the radiation of the fly ash is missing the forest for one tree.

Which is what you are doing.