[** Official President Joe Biden Thread **]

[Bert 1,128]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You oughta sell all your energy stocks that aren’t heavily shifting towards renewable anyway. The market is now speaking on that 

The stock market is also rewarding company's for hiring based on skin color.  Hydrocarbon demand is expected to increase for the next 20 years.  Company's with a moderate plan to shift to traditional renewables and new technologies such as hydrogen will be the winners in the long run.       

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

12 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You oughta sell all your energy stocks that aren’t heavily shifting towards renewable anyway. The market is now speaking on that 

We are not close to the technology needed for renewables to support our electricity demands and it may honestly never be possible. I am not sure why we are not embracing nuclear, but it is what it is.

 

[Bert 1,128]

7 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

We are not close to the technology needed for renewables to support our electricity demands and it may honestly never be possible. I am not sure why we are not embracing nuclear, but it is what it is.

 

Agreed.  We are also starting to see the NIMBY issue on wind and solar projects.  It takes a whole lot of real estate for facilities that only generate 35-40% of the time.

[drobeski 3,061]

*

[IGotWorms 4,057]

55 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

We are not close to the technology needed for renewables to support our electricity demands and it may honestly never be possible. I am not sure why we are not embracing nuclear, but it is what it is.

 

True but demand should hopefully decrease as efficiency increases and other options are maximized.

The problem with nuclear is safety, especially vis a vis the waste which must be contained FOREVER.

[Bert 1,128]

20 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

True but demand should hopefully decrease as efficiency increases and other options are maximized.

I'm not busting your chops but why do you think electricity demand will decrease?  The urbanization and industrialization of China, India and South America, population growth forecasts, the push to convert automobiles from gasoline to electric power and the push in places like San Fran to eliminate natural gas in homes and restaurants all point to a substantial increase in electricity demand.  

[IGotWorms 4,057]

6 minutes ago, Bert said:

I'm not busting your chops but why do you think electricity demand will decrease?  The urbanization and industrialization of China, India and South America, population growth forecasts, the push to convert automobiles from gasoline to electric power and the push in places like San Fran to eliminate natural gas in homes and restaurants all point to a substantial increase in electricity demand.  

I was talking fossil fuels except of course where they’re used to generate electricity. Essentially oil

[Bert 1,128]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I was talking fossil fuels except of course where they’re used to generate electricity. Essentially oil

Gotcha.  I believe it will be at least 20 years before we potentially see peek oil.

[Big Guy 1,412]

On 12/15/2020 at 9:27 AM, Rusty Syringes said:

[** Official President Joe Biden Thread **]

 

 

FAKE NEWS!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,243]

You guys ever see that video of Biden inappropriately touching women and little girls? It’s disturbing. 

[OldMaid 2,130]

3 minutes ago, Big Guy said:

FAKE NEWS!

Only if you live on planet Wackadoo!

[Big Guy 1,412]

1 minute ago, OldMaid said:

Only if you live on planet Wackadoo!

too funny.......History will reveal the truth

[Utilit99 4,099]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You guys ever see that video of Biden inappropriately touching women and little girls? It’s disturbing. 

Forgiven leftist pedo by the communists as long as he helps ease the TDS the liberals suffer from. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

17 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Only if you live on planet Wackadoo!

Big Guy is the king and Little Rusty his queen

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

True but demand should hopefully decrease as efficiency increases and other options are maximized.

The problem with nuclear is safety, especially vis a vis the waste which must be contained FOREVER.

Demand for fossil fuels will stay the same or increase over the next 20 years.

Servers/computing will increase, population will increase, and the electricity demand is going to skyrocket with the electric car revolution that will come. Nuclear waste is overblow, and the new designs are extremely safe, there is no risk of a meltdown with our technology that is even 30 years old.

Residential only uses 16% of the power, so even if every house in the US had solar panels that still barely puts a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.

One of my brother in laws is extremely liberal, drives a tesla, has solar panels, etc, and works as a civil engineer/management for a major electricity distribution company in the US. He has some very compelling arguments on why neither wind nor solar are anything more than a pipedream. It is part of the reason I have no worries about my own job over the next 20 years outside of general volatility of the industry.

The only possible solution for our energy needs are either fossil fuels or nuclear.

[Bert 1,128]

2 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

Demand for fossil fuels will stay the same or increase over the next 20 years.

Servers/computing will increase, population is increases, and the electricity demand is going to skyrocket with the electric car revolution that will come. Nuclear waste is overblow, and the new designs are extremely safe, there is no risk of a meltdown with our technology that is even 30 years old.

Residential only uses 16% of the power, so even if every house in the US had solar panels that still barely puts a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.

One of my brother in laws is extremely liberal, drives a tesla, has solar panels, etc, and works as a civil engineer/management for a major electricity distribution company in the US. He has some very compelling arguments on why neither wind nor solar are anything more than a pipedream. It is part of the reason I have no worries about my own job over the next 20 years outside of general volatility of the industry.

The only possible solution for our energy needs are either fossil fuels or nuclear.

[OldMaid 2,130]

25 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Big Guy is the king and Little Rusty his queen

Is he also a hermaphrodite?

[Big Guy 1,412]

1 hour ago, OldMaid said:

Is he also a hermaphrodite?

 

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Big Guy is the king and Little Rusty his queen

only when I'm lonely 

[5-Points 3,471]

Jobama

[Hardcore troubadour 15,243]

On 12/15/2020 at 6:21 PM, wiffleball said:

Biden hasn't talked about the size of his brain yet. So I'm not really sure what to think.

So you didn’t see that video of him telling some guy he had a higher IQ than him and bragging about his non-existent academic achievements? Just straight up making it up on the spot. “I graduated at the top of my class”. Nope. At the bottom. “I graduated with two degrees”. Nope. Barely one. “I had a full academic scholarship “. Nope. Just another rich kid who’s dad paid for it. The guys a joke. 

[shorepatrol 1,870]

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

 

The problem with nuclear is safety, especially vis a vis the waste which must be contained FOREVER.

Just throw a mask on the reactor. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

4 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

Demand for fossil fuels will stay the same or increase over the next 20 years.

Servers/computing will increase, population will increase, and the electricity demand is going to skyrocket with the electric car revolution that will come. Nuclear waste is overblow, and the new designs are extremely safe, there is no risk of a meltdown with our technology that is even 30 years old.

Residential only uses 16% of the power, so even if every house in the US had solar panels that still barely puts a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.

One of my brother in laws is extremely liberal, drives a tesla, has solar panels, etc, and works as a civil engineer/management for a major electricity distribution company in the US. He has some very compelling arguments on why neither wind nor solar are anything more than a pipedream. It is part of the reason I have no worries about my own job over the next 20 years outside of general volatility of the industry.

The only possible solution for our energy needs are either fossil fuels or nuclear.

Lol tech that’s 30 years old. Nuclear is FOREVER. Ever and ever!

[IGotWorms 4,057]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So you didn’t see that video of him telling some guy he had a higher IQ than him and bragging about his non-existent academic achievements? Just straight up making it up on the spot. “I graduated at the top of my class”. Nope. At the bottom. “I graduated with two degrees”. Nope. Barely one. “I had a full academic scholarship “. Nope. Just another rich kid who’s dad paid for it. The guys a joke. 

You’re gonna have to try really REALLY hard to sell that after four years of Trump.

Hardcore leftist? Lol no.

Pedophile creep? Sorry you guys trotted that one out before.

All you’ve got is he’s old and senile. Which is true and yet he’s still VASTLY preferable to that which he replaced. Let that sink in.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

36 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Lol tech that’s 30 years old. Nuclear is FOREVER. Ever and ever!

 

I think you misunderstood my point. Nuclear power that is 30 years old is safe against meltdowns because of how we are designing our reactors. The same catalyst that fuels the reactors also cools the reactors down. So if the coolant leaks the plant shuts down and there is no runaway reaction.

My comment was not about the nuclear waste, although to be honest modern reactors are significantly more efficient and do produce less waste, although that waste is forever.

 

The real issue is that nuclear power is the only carbon free power source for the future. There is no other option, so if you really want to reduce the carbon output, you put solar panels on every house, you put wind power in rural states, and then you build 20-40+ modern nuclear reactors at 10 billion a piece. But we need to start building these reactors fast.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,243]

21 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re gonna have to try really REALLY hard to sell that after four years of Trump.

Hardcore leftist? Lol no.

Pedophile creep? Sorry you guys trotted that one out before.

All you’ve got is he’s old and senile. Which is true and yet he’s still VASTLY preferable to that which he replaced. Let that sink in.

Trump is over. Move on. We’re on to Biden now. And there’s loads and loads of material. Asthma Joe. Couldn’t go to Vietnam because of his Asthma, but he could run track. Another rich kid draft dodger. Scranton Joe. Lol. But he had zero problems sending other kids to a useless war. Trump didn’t do that. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

7 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

I think you misunderstood my point. Nuclear power that is 30 years old is safe against meltdowns because of how we are designing our reactors. The same catalyst that fuels the reactors also cools the reactors down. So if the coolant leaks the plant shuts down and there is no runaway reaction.

My comment was not about the nuclear waste, although to be honest modern reactors are significantly more efficient and do produce less waste, although that waste is forever.

 

The real issue is that nuclear power is the only carbon free power source for the future. There is no other option, so if you really want to reduce the carbon output, you put solar panels on every house, you put wind power in rural states, and then you build 20-40+ modern nuclear reactors at 10 billion a piece. But we need to start building these reactors fast.

Fukushima?

But anyway, can’t get away from the waste problem. Only reasonable idea is to shoot it off into space and make the whole g0ddamn universe our junkyard. But it is ever expanding...

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

22 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Fukushima?

But anyway, can’t get away from the waste problem. Only reasonable idea is to shoot it off into space and make the whole g0ddamn universe our junkyard. But it is ever expanding...

Fukushima is a 60 year old reactor and not a 30 year old design, in all modern designs the coolant is also the catalyzer to prevent the exact scenario that happened in Fukushima, building new reactors to phase out the old would be a great idea, however building new reactors to get rid of coal plants would be a start. 

The waste is obviously a risk, but there are ways of dealing with it. Modern reactors are also much more fuel efficient than previous designs.

There are no other alternatives, wind and solar cannot supply our countries energy needs. So if you believe in global warming it is either nuclear or dealing with the consequences.

 

Link, designed in the early 60's ie 60 years ago.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx

 

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Fukushima?

But anyway, can’t get away from the waste problem. Only reasonable idea is to shoot it off into space and make the whole g0ddamn universe our junkyard. But it is ever expanding...

 

I also just so happened to play some video games tonight with my brother in law and I discussed our conversation with him. He recommended reading the below link. 

 

Confronting the Duck Curve: How to Address Over-Generation of Solar Energy | Department of Energy

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 hour ago, MTSkiBum said:

Fukushima is a 60 year old reactor and not a 30 year old design, in all modern designs the coolant is also the catalyzer to prevent the exact scenario that happened in Fukushima, building new reactors to phase out the old would be a great idea, however building new reactors to get rid of coal plants would be a start. 

The waste is obviously a risk, but there are ways of dealing with it. Modern reactors are also much more fuel efficient than previous designs.

There are no other alternatives, wind and solar cannot supply our countries energy needs. So if you believe in global warming it is either nuclear or dealing with the consequences.

 

Link, designed in the early 60's ie 60 years ago.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx

 

What about carbon capturing and the like? Any hope there? 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

11 hours ago, shorepatrol said:

Just throw a mask on the reactor. 

Also make the reactor kneel.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

You know what would happen if we initiated a large scale nuclear power program, right?  The radical left would view it as a wonderful and glorious opportunity to virtue signal and protest over the dangers of radioactivity and they would get them all shut down.  Sane arguments would get tossed just like they do everywhere else. 

[Rusty Syringes 478]

15 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Big Guy is the king and Little Rusty his queen

Well, he is pretty big. 

[Rusty Syringes 478]

1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

You know what would happen if we initiated a large scale nuclear power program, right?  The radical left would view it as a wonderful and glorious opportunity to virtue signal and protest over the dangers of radioactivity and they would get them all shut down.  Sane arguments would get tossed just like they do everywhere else. 

I think you're overreactoring. 

[Bert 1,128]

1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

You know what would happen if we initiated a large scale nuclear power program, right?  The radical left would view it as a wonderful and glorious opportunity to virtue signal and protest over the dangers of radioactivity and they would get them all shut down.  Sane arguments would get tossed just like they do everywhere else. 

And while the US is getting cleaner and the leader in carbon reductions or the last 20 years China is ramping up its coal production and likely to eliminate everything the US has accomplished.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

8 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

What about carbon capturing and the like? Any hope there? 

I do not think anyone knows at this point. There are two types of carbon capture and both have their unique challenges.

Scenario 1:

If you try to capture as it comes out of the power plant you need to remove the nitrogen before using oxygen as a fuel source, this makes it easier to capture the CO2 as it leaves the plant. This adds significant cost to the power plant. Then you need to do something with the carbon, the most likely is injecting it under the earth, however before you can do that you need to pressurize it into a super critical liquid. The pumps that are capable of doing this add cost. Then most importantly the power plant needs to be located near a depleted oil field or similar. So that it will stay downhole once injected.

Designing a plant that produces a high enough carbon dioxide to capture has proven difficult. Without even the capture technologies they spent 7.5 billion on the below plant before giving up. The injection costs would run a few billion as well, so at that price it costs as much or more than nuclear. It is not cost competitive.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cost-settlement-for-failed-75b-kemper-clean-coal-project-heads-to-finis/515491/

 

Scenario 2:

If you try to capture the carbon that is already in the atmosphere, you can set these up near depleted oil fields, so that is no longer an issue. However the problem with this approach is that Nitrogen is ~79%, Oxygen is 20%, argon is 1%, and carbon dioxide is on the order of parts per million (all from memory, i may be wrong, but i am close), trying to capture a significant amount of carbon dioxide when it only makes up such a small fraction of the atmosphere is where the hurdle lies with this approach. There are many teams working on this, but without a scientific breakthrough there is no hope.

 

The time until either of these technologies becomes feasible is on the order of magnitude of decades and not years.

 

Nuclear power is the only option for reducing our carbon footprint.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

16 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You guys ever see that video of Biden inappropriately touching women and little girls? It’s disturbing. 

OLD NEWS.

[Utilit99 4,099]

3 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

I do not think anyone knows at this point. There are two types of carbon capture and both have their unique challenges.

Scenario 1:

If you try to capture as it comes out of the power plant you need to remove the nitrogen before using oxygen as a fuel source, this makes it easier to capture the CO2 as it leaves the plant. This adds significant cost to the power plant. Then you need to do something with the carbon, the most likely is injecting it under the earth, however before you can do that you need to pressurize it into a super critical liquid. The pumps that are capable of doing this add cost. Then most importantly the power plant needs to be located near a depleted oil field or similar. So that it will stay downhole once injected.

Designing a plant that produces a high enough carbon dioxide to capture has proven difficult. Without even the capture technologies they spent 7.5 billion on the below plant before giving up. The injection costs would run a few billion as well, so at that price it costs as much or more than nuclear. It is not cost competitive.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cost-settlement-for-failed-75b-kemper-clean-coal-project-heads-to-finis/515491/

 

Scenario 2:

If you try to capture the carbon that is already in the atmosphere, you can set these up near depleted oil fields, so that is no longer an issue. However the problem with this approach is that Nitrogen is ~79%, Oxygen is 20%, argon is 1%, and carbon dioxide is on the order of parts per million (all from memory, i may be wrong, but i am close), trying to capture a significant amount of carbon dioxide when it only makes up such a small fraction of the atmosphere is where the hurdle lies with this approach. There are many teams working on this, but without a scientific breakthrough there is no hope.

 

The time until either of these technologies becomes feasible is on the order of magnitude of decades and not years.

 

Nuclear power is the only option for reducing our carbon footprint.

Take those ideas to the Shark Tank and let Mark Cuban bid on them along with that hottie with the big boobies who can sell anything on infomercials to lonely people sitting in their bedrooms alone late at night.

[Utilit99 4,099]

7 minutes ago, Rusty Syringes said:

OLD NEWS.

So him being a pedo is old news now. But yet, let's go after Kavenaugh for something he didn't do a century ago.. This is the brilliance of the left ladies and gentlemen.

Simply amazing.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,243]

Just now, Utilit99 said:

So him being a pedo is old news now. But yet, let's go after Kavenaugh for something he didn't do a century ago.. This is the brilliance of the left ladies and gentlemen.

Simply amazing.

China Joe also had to drop out of the presidential race in 1987 because he got busted plagiarizing. This guy is weak.  

[Rusty Syringes 478]

Just now, Utilit99 said:

So him being a pedo is old news now. But yet, let's go after Kavenaugh for something he didn't do a century ago.. This is the brilliance of the left ladies and gentlemen.

Simply amazing.

Link to him actually being charged with anything in regard to being a pedophile. I've seen all the videos, and you Clownzo loyalists bring it up in practically every other post.

Geebus, time to move on.

As Big Guy said, history will prove that the future is the past sometime in the future.