Fossil Fuels are a Hell of a Lot More Sustainable Than Wind and Solar

[Lokmar]

The problem is, idealisic and dogmatic drones have been told renewables or we all die. No a single one of them understands the scale of solar and wind powerplants needed to replace fossil fuels. I've spent most of my professional career calculating electrical loads. When I try to explain it to my family, even they have a difficult time with it.

[Anonymous]

The problem is, idealisic and dogmatic drones have been told renewables or we all die. No a single one of them understands the scale of solar and wind powerplants needed to replace fossil fuels. I've spent most of my professional career calculating electrical loads. When I try to explain it to my family, even they have a difficult time with it.

On top of that, wind and solar aint even close to being renewable or sustainable.

[Anonymous]

"Germany said, 'We don't want nuclear power anymore,' which is the cleanest, and what did they have to go back to? Coal."

[Breakfall]

"Germany said, 'We don't want nuclear power anymore,' which is the cleanest, and what did they have to go back to? Coal."

While nuclear power is clean in itself, obtaining it and it's distribution is unclean. Even performing basic maintenance isn't fuelled by nuclear energy. Burning of fossil fuels is not the way forward. Sorry mate...you can argue until you're blue in the face...fact remains that fossil fuels are unsustainable and is destroying the planet.

[Anonymous]

"Germany said, 'We don't want nuclear power anymore,' which is the cleanest, and what did they have to go back to? Coal."

While nuclear power is clean in itself, obtaining it and it's distribution is unclean. Even performing basic maintenance isn't fuelled by nuclear energy. Burning of fossil fuels is not the way forward. Sorry mate...you can argue until you're blue in the face...fact remains that fossil fuels are unsustainable and is destroying the planet.

Actually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."

Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

[Anonymous]

Countries that use the most petroleum products have the highest living standards and the best environmental records. Fact.

[Anonymous]

The Jim Crow Joe administration was warned that anti-fossil fuel policies would lead to higher energy costs, which would lead to price inflation throughout the global economy, we wouldn't be experiencing a national and global energy crisis today.



Let me be clear: today's energy crisis is very simple and it was completely preventable.



The price of energy, like all prices, is set by supply and demand.



For the last 15 years, the global anti-fossil-fuel movement, with major leadership by Barack Obama and Jim Crow Joe, has acted aggressively to restrict the supply of fossil fuel energy, which has prevented it from keeping up with growing demand for fossil fuel energy.³



When fossil fuel supply goes down and fossil fuel demand goes up, fossil fuel energy prices go up. And when energy prices go up, the price of everything goes up.



It's really that simple.

[Anonymous]

There is no physical reason the oil industry can't meet rising demand. The world has hundreds of years' worth of oil deposits. There is no technical reason the oil industry can't meet rising demand. It is more capable than ever thanks to amazing technologies like fracking.



If there is no physical or technical reason the oil industry can't meet rising demand, what is inhibiting it?



Decades of rising restrictions on oil production and transport from anti-oil politicians—including Biden's massive threats to punish oil production going forward.



Perhaps the greatest limiter of the supply of oil has been anti-oil politicians' constant threats to severely restrict or even ban oil production going forward. E.g., when Joe Biden promises "I guarantee you, we're going to end fossil fuel" and then becomes President, many oil investors run for the hills.⁵



Is it any wonder that, threatened with punishment, investment in oil and gas has declined dramatically? Under Obama and now Jim Crow Joe oil and gas exploration investments declined by 50%. Less investment = less supply = higher prices.⁶



Anti-oil politicians' restrictions on infrastructure, especially pipelines, have reduced the supply of oil by making it difficult or impossible to transport US oil to international markets. If not for these restrictions we'd be producing more oil, with lower prices for everyone.



If not for Jim Crow Joe, Justine and other anti-oil politicians around the world radically restricting the production/transport of oil, as well as threatening oil companies and investors, the global oil industry would have rapidly adjusted to rising demand—and prices would be far lower.



The basic solution to oil/gasoline prices is simple: we need a *long-term Congressional commitment* to liberate domestic oil production. Until Congress makes clear that the government will stop threatening and destroying oil production, companies will rightly underinvest in production.



More broadly, the basic global solution to the energy crisis is for the global community to reject the anti-fossil-fuel movement and reverse all global anti-fossil-fuel policies. This includes canceling the Paris Agreement—the policy that is driving the world to rapidly restrict the supply of desperately-needed fossil fuels.⁷



Fossil fuels have actually made us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. That's why the rate of climate disaster deaths — deaths from extreme temperatures, droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods — has decreased by 98% over the last century.⁹



What we've been told about fossil fuels is exactly backward. We are told that we should be afraid of continuing fossil fuel use because it will make the world unlivable. In fact, fossil fuel use has made the world a better and better place to live, including safer from climate, for the last two centuries—and can continue to do so going forward. What will make the world unlivable for more and more people, as we are seeing now, is the attempt to eliminate fossil fuels—which necessarily leads to energy crises and economic crises. The only way out of this crisis is for America—and the world—to embrace a Fossil Future.

[Lokmar]

Green/renewable energy is simply a scam. The big problem though is all the 40 somethings were raised on Capt. Planet and the Planeteers and as a result, they got that Gaia worship shoved so far up their asses, they cant reason. Its all emotion with them. Lithium batteries are far dirtier to produce than uranium ore. Solar is only 32% efficient and requires a whole host of toxic compounds to produce. We barely make 12% of our current power with wind and solar. For all the green energy push, its a joke!  Carbon Dioxide has NEVER been and will NEVER be a pollutant. The sun creating organic matter will ALWAYS be the greatest source of energy as evidenced by all the fossil fuels that created the greatest state of humanity the planet has ever known.

[Anonymous]

Green/renewable energy is simply a scam. The big problem though is all the 40 somethings were raised on Capt. Planet and the Planeteers and as a result, they got that Gaia worship shoved so far up their asses, they cant reason. Its all emotion with them. Lithium batteries are far dirtier to produce than uranium ore. Solar is only 32% efficient and requires a whole host of toxic compounds to produce. We barely make 12% of our current power with wind and solar. For all the green energy push, its a joke!  Carbon Dioxide has NEVER been and will NEVER be a pollutant. The sun creating organic matter will ALWAYS be the greatest source of energy as evidenced by all the fossil fuels that created the greatest state of humanity the planet has ever known.

It's a corrupt cron capitalism scam. Just a handful of billionaires and coroprations receiving huge tazpayers transfers and anti competition legislation. In the end, it doesn't slow climate change, and it is far more polluting per amount of energy produced. And on top of that it needs to be backed up by fossils. We keep throwing good money after bad on this antiquated technology.

[Breakfall]

While nuclear power is clean in itself, obtaining it and it's distribution is unclean. Even performing basic maintenance isn't fuelled by nuclear energy. Burning of fossil fuels is not the way forward. Sorry mate...you can argue until you're blue in the face...fact remains that fossil fuels are unsustainable and is destroying the planet.

Actually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."

Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

What utter crap!

[Breakfall]

Actually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."

Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

What utter crap!



https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/8-reasons-why-we-need-to-phase-out-the-fossil-fuel-industry/

[Anonymous]

Actually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."

Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

What utter crap!

So, Joe Biden wasn't warned his anti oil development problems?

[Breakfall]

What utter crap!

So, Joe Biden wasn't warned his anti oil development problems?

I don't follow Joe Biden. As far as I'm concerned, he is a puppet and was a means to end Trump's fuckery.

Fossil fuels are the main contributor to global emissions. That is undeniable...but it blows my mind at the complete stupidity of this entire thread. Fuck sakes!

[Anonymous]

So, Joe Biden wasn't warned his anti oil development problems?

I don't follow Joe Biden. As far as I'm concerned, he is a puppet and was a means to end Trump's fuckery.

Fossil fuels are the main contributor to global emissions. That is undeniable...but it blows my mind at the complete stupidity of this entire thread. Fuck sakes!

Actually, active volcanoes are the biggest contributor to global emissions. Long before the Pliocene, CO2 levels were extremely elevated during the age of the dinosaurs (which ended 65 million years ago), perhaps at some 2,000 to 4,000 ppm. Tremendous CO2 emissions, from incessant and extreme volcanism, heated Earth and allowed dinosaurs to roam a sultry Antarctic. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.



During the middle ages warming period, emissions as measured by ppm were higher than today. Crops grew in Greenland at one time.



The global climate has always been in flux and animals and humans have always adapated as we will now. Asking us, no forcing us to abandon the reason(fossil fuels) we have made great technological advances in medicine, and engineering that have allowed humans to thrive is insane. Besides, nobody seriously believes we will ever stop using petroleum products. We will continue to improve on them and reduce their environmental impact, but replacement of such a plentiful necessary commodity is not going to happen. Don't worry, humans have always adapted to a changing climate without lowering their living standards. We will do it again.