Our economy depends on fossil fuels. Democrats want us off fossil fuels in 12-15 years. That’s about as radical as one can get in regards to our economy.
Stupid sh#t people have posted
- Thread starter JJ Husker
- Start date
ZRod
Active member
Why??? It's a national security risk, pollution issue, and climate issue to remain in a fossil fuel dependent state. People have been trying to get us out of this for over 50 years now. It's not radical, it's late.
And it's not democratics. It's probably a majority of Americans regardless of political ideology.
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker
Donor
Maybe they just seem alarmist because they’ve been largely ignored on this issue by the right for a long long time. I’ll grant you that some of the predictions, warnings and desires come off as alarmist. But it’s a very real problem and it is going to be near impossible to get the whole planet to act in time. Not because s#!ts going to hit the fan in the next 10-20-30 years but because we have to start making changes now before it is too late. And quite frankly, attitudes like your’s are not helping. Knowing what we know, I don’t know why we wouldn’t all being trying to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible. It’s an inevitable transition we have to make.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you intentionally not understanding or am I doing a bad job of repeatedly saying this…..I DONT CARE WHAT ENERGY SOURCE OUR COUNTRY RUNS OFF OF. currently we are fossil fuel dependent and will continue to be until the renewable energy tech gets up to speed to overtake fossil fuels. That ain’t happening in 12-15 years. Trying to change this in 12-15 years is radical crazy talk. Telling us all that it needs to happen that soon or the climate will forever be altered is also equally crazy.
Humans will change energy sources eventually. We have plenty of time to allow the renewable technology to catch up to our needs. That is my point. There is no reason for the alarmism.
Do you believe that humans will be as dependent on fossil fuels 100 years from now as humans currently are? I don’t. I also don’t believe Earth will be much different as it is now once renewable tech does becomes efficiently enough to become the dominant or sole player in energy
I’ve made this point at least 10 times in different forums. It’s going to happen. Too much money in energy for someone to not figure it out. I’m all for subsidies to help make it happen as I’ve said before. I just can’t get behind the constant alarmism that never seems to pan out for those making the predictions.
RedDenver
New member
Yeah, those predictions have never panned out...
Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
Scientists have gotten predictions of global warming right since the 1970s
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
How climate models got so accurate they earned a Nobel Prize
Here's How Scarily Accurate NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions Have Been So Far
Sea Level Projections Have Been Proven Right And That's Not Good News
NASA satellite sea level rise data
knapplc
Active member
Why not? Kennedy said in 1962 that we would land a man on the moon before the decade was out. We didn't even have the technology to get humans out of low-Earth orbit in place when he made that promise.
American engineers developed the SR-71 Blackbird from blueprints to working aircraft using graph paper and slide rules in three years.
A dozen years? 15? That's a lifetime.
You gonna replace 280 million US cars in 12-15 years? Will we have that many batteries to do it? Will we have that many materials to build that many batteries? Charging station build outs for 280 million cars?
DevoHusker
New member
What system will charge those 280 million cars? What form of electric production will provide the charge? What will happen to the grid when 280 million cars are plugged in daily?
Lots of unanswered questions...
ZRod
Active member
Funny, but your math almost checks out. Average US new car sales per year before the pandemic were around 17 million. Multiplied by 15 years, that's 255 million cars. Every single OEM has plans for massive investment in battery production. Every single OEM is neck deep in R&D to make electric vehicles the future, and find alternative material for battery production.
Wait... I thought you didn't like alarmists? Because you sure sound like one now.
The US power grid will charge those vehicles, and it will need to grow accordingly. We should be investing in Nuclear and renewable energy to support the expanding grid.
Last edited by a moderator:
DevoHusker
New member
And we will need to burn a s#!tload of coal to do so.
It takes 5-7 years to get one...1...nuclear power plant on line.
I, and I think Archy, have no issue with the proposed transition. It's the unrealistic time frame.
You actually believe that in 15 years, everyone who has a gas powered car will be able to purchase an electric vehicle? You work In the industry and still believe this.
I understand the transition will happen at some point. I’m guessing almost everyone believes the transition will happen as some point. That’s not in dispute, yet you and others make it seem like people like me are disputing what is eventually bound to happen. But it ain’t happening in 12-15 years. I will bet my life savings on it.
DevoHusker
New member
ZRod
Active member
First of all, for the record, can we state where this "10 to 12 years" is coming from?
Second. You can build power plants in parallel... Nobody said they had to be built one at a time. You can still use natural gas power plants as well, since it's cleaner than coal.
The point that has continually been pushed to you and Archy is that we're late. We wasted time under Trump with him cancelling everything climate related. None of this is a new initiative and a lot could have been accomplished already if one side took their fingers out of their ears and got onboard.
Last edited by a moderator: