Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

[T. A. Gardner]

Among English teachers, there are 97 Democrats for every three Republicans, with the proportion being even more one-sided among health teachers, with 99 Democrats for every one Republican.

While there are slightly more Republicans among math and science teachers, among high school teachers overall, there are 87 Democrats for every 13 Republicans.

https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-...ostly-liberal/

https://www.opensecrets.org/industri...2020&ind=L1300

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2...icas-k-12.html

While I can blame both sides, the problem is largely one coming from the Left, not Right.

[BartenderElite]

Do you know what the watt density of sunlight is? The average PV solar panel produces about 1.5 watts per square foot.

The average wind turbine produces about 4 to 5 MW of power

The US currently consumes about 3.9 terawatts of power.

Do the math. Wind and solar are losers and will always be losers.

And huge computers will never have any practical personal use, or be able to be used as handhelds.

[cancel2 2022]

They can't meet our energy needs today. But in 50 years? Very possible.

By then 4th gen. new, ammonia, hydrogen and fusion will have taken over.

[BartenderElite]

By then 4th gen. new, ammonia, hydrogen and fusion will have taken over.

I have a strange feeling that you guys don't like wind & solar simply because you see them as "lefty" alternatives...

[cancel2 2022]

I have a strange feeling that you guys don't like wind & solar simply because you see them as "lefty" alternatives...

I have an even stranger feeling that you're an idiot and have no grounding in either science or engineering. As Mark Twain said it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled.

[cancel2 2022]

.

I truly despair at the arrant stupidity of many people it's truly beyond parody. Xi must be thinking that Xmas has come early!

Joe Biden wants to take one of the great American success stories of the last several decades — and drive it into the ground.

He would turn his back on the stupendous wealth represented by proven reserves of oil and gas in this country.

Rather than focusing on producing cheap, abundant energy — a key ingredient to human progress through all of human history — he would embark on the fool’s errand of trying to adjust the world’s thermostat 80 years from now.


After a 50-year effort to diminish our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, which has miraculously happened at last, Biden would force America to transition to solar and wind, *industries currently dependent on Chinese supply chains.

Whereas California has embraced the radical goal of a carbon-free electric grid by 2045 and has drastically increased the price of energy in the state already, Biden has seen and raised the Golden State’s gambit by embracing a goal of 2035.

All this was underlined by Biden’s statement at the end of last week’s debate that he wants to transition from oil, which constituted a gaffe only for anyone who hadn’t been paying attention to his Green New Deal-inflected energy plan.

It’s a funny time to want to kneecap oil and gas. Proven reserves of natural gas in the United States are higher than ever before, thanks to American-made technological innovations.

A couple of years ago, the United States surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia in crude oil production. In recent years, petroleum and natural gas exports have been increasing. And, of course, the rise of natural gas has cut US carbon emissions.

This should be considered a *national strength to be built on, not a national shame to be put on a glide path to extinction. Fossil fuels are a tremendously useful source of energy, and no hype about renewables can obscure that reality.

In 2019, petroleum, natural gas, and coal accounted for 80 percent of overall energy consumption in the United States, according to US Energy Information Administration.

Renewables made up only 11 percent, and the bulk of that came from biomass (wood and biofuels) and hydroelectric. Despite being heavily subsidized, wind and solar combined were responsible for only about a third of our renewable energy.

As the Danish economist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the share of US energy that comes from renewables declined over the last century. The rise of fossil fuels was a boon to humanity, a major advance over those old renewables, wood, and dung.

“Over a century and a half,” Lomberg writes, “we shed our reliance on renewable energy and powered the Industrial Revolution with fossil fuels.”

The oil and gas industry should also be prized as a source of good American jobs. Petroleum engineers make about $137,000 a year, pump system and refinery operators, $72,000 a year, wellhead pumpers, $58,000, and roustabouts $44,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The idea that we are going to transition to wind and solar painlessly is a fantasy. Germany has been spending tens of billions a year trying to make this happen.

Its renewable-energy program has doubled the cost of energy, while fossil fuels still account for about 80 percent of its energy supply.

If we think eschewing fossil fuels is going to convince other countries to do the same, we are fooling ourselves. Like in the United States, the industrial takeoff in China coincided with a jump in the use of coal.

China is still building coal plants at a furious clip. The Middle Kingdom has plans to add more than the current US coal-fired capacity on top of its already prodigious use of coal, which accounts for more than half of the world’s total.

The Biden plan is an assault on American ingenuity and wealth, not to mention common sense. At least after last week, no one can say he wasn’t warned.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/jo...-gas-industry/

[dukkha]

I have a strange feeling that you guys don't like wind & solar simply because you see them as "lefty" alternatives...

[T. A. Gardner]

And huge computers will never have any practical personal use, or be able to be used as handhelds.

No True Scotsman fallacy, among others.

In physics and engineering, you learn that perpetual motion machines cannot exist. You cannot get more energy out than you put in. The watt density of sunlight is a fixed, known quantity. The chemistry and physics of PV solar have been known and established for nearly a century now. PV solar works like a battery. You cannot get around the chemistry and physics of that. You cannot get more power out of any solar array than the watts of sunlight striking it per unit area. Those are fixed absolutes.

With wind it's the same thing. The amount of energy in air motion is proportional to its pressure and velocity. Converting that to electrical energy using a wind turbine is likewise a known and calculable quantity. Generation of electricity is also a known science. This isn't going to change either.

So, in 50 years, you might get wind turbines to be more efficient, but solar's a dead end. Neither will ever get more energy out than is put in either. You cannot get around physics. Both wind and solar simply are too inefficient to work. When you factor in that both are intermittent sources as they don't work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow (or blows too hard), you cannot rely on them 24/7 to be there when you need them. Storing potential electrical power is grossly expensive and difficult to do, not to mention inefficient as it takes energy to do that reducing the overall efficiency of the system.

Solar and wind are losers. They were fifty years ago and they will be fifty years from now. Or, do you just want to deny the science?

[T. A. Gardner]

I have a strange feeling that you guys don't like wind & solar simply because you see them as "lefty" alternatives...

No, I don't like what doesn't work. The "science" (since you and others are using that line right now about COVID as a support for Biden) tells us that solar and wind are horribly inefficient means to make electricity and that they should be rejected.

[BartenderElite]

No True Scotsman fallacy, among others.

In physics and engineering, you learn that perpetual motion machines cannot exist. You cannot get more energy out than you put in. The watt density of sunlight is a fixed, known quantity. The chemistry and physics of PV solar have been known and established for nearly a century now. PV solar works like a battery. You cannot get around the chemistry and physics of that. You cannot get more power out of any solar array than the watts of sunlight striking it per unit area. Those are fixed absolutes.

With wind it's the same thing. The amount of energy in air motion is proportional to its pressure and velocity. Converting that to electrical energy using a wind turbine is likewise a known and calculable quantity. Generation of electricity is also a known science. This isn't going to change either.

So, in 50 years, you might get wind turbines to be more efficient, but solar's a dead end. Neither will ever get more energy out than is put in either. You cannot get around physics. Both wind and solar simply are too inefficient to work. When you factor in that both are intermittent sources as they don't work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow (or blows too hard), you cannot rely on them 24/7 to be there when you need them. Storing potential electrical power is grossly expensive and difficult to do, not to mention inefficient as it takes energy to do that reducing the overall efficiency of the system.

Solar and wind are losers. They were fifty years ago and they will be fifty years from now. Or, do you just want to deny the science?

People made the same sorts of "absolutes" arguments about the size of computer chips and processors.

None of us have any idea what the science of the future on this topic will be like. They might find radical new ways of harnessing and storing both wind & solar. Things that even a top scientist in the field today might not even be able to imagine.

That's really the only thing history has taught us in this area. When a computer was filling 2 rooms, many would have laughed if someone said that they'd be in every home someday, and that everyone would also walk around with one in their pocket.

Wind & solar are very likely a big part of our energy future. Those who think fossil fuels will last for more then a few more decades with increase population and rates of consumption are the true science deniers.

[Flash]

So ... no specific examples, just fabricated generalities. Got it.

Don't you keep up with the news? All of those are specific examples of cases in which the courts ruled against Trump's action.

Here, I'll start your work for you:

Supreme Court Rules For DREAMers, Against Trump

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/82985...administration

Try reading a newspaper.

[T. A. Gardner]

People made the same sorts of "absolutes" arguments about the size of computer chips and processors.

None of us have any idea what the science of the future on this topic will be like. They might find radical new ways of harnessing and storing both wind & solar. Things that even a top scientist in the field today might not even be able to imagine.

That's really the only thing history has taught us in this area. When a computer was filling 2 rooms, many would have laughed if someone said that they'd be in every home someday, and that everyone would also walk around with one in their pocket.

Wind & solar are very likely a big part of our energy future. Those who think fossil fuels will last for more then a few more decades with increase population and rates of consumption are the true science deniers.

You have no idea what you are talking about. It's that simple. You cannot change the watt density of sunlight. You cannot change the amount of energy in the wind. Those are absolutes. They always have been, always will be.

Do you even know how a photovoltaic cell works?

Here's a simplistic diagram



It is basically a photo-electric diode



As sunlight enters, it causes a difference in potential between the P and N material layers in the cell. That causes, in turn, electrical current to flow in proportion to the energy absorbed and the difference in electrical potential between the elements used to make up the two layers. Just like in a battery, this difference is determined by the elements used. The most voltage you can produce is about 2 VDC. A periodic table shows you that.

Simplified for your viewing:



The amperage out is directly proportional to the size of the cell and the amount of sunlight hitting it. The later is a fixed value, so the only thing you can do is increase cell size. But since you need more than 2 VDC, you have to limit cell size and use more cells. There's a trade off there.

NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS, OR THE NEXT 500 YEARS!

So, unless you invent a completely new way of converting sunlight to electrical energy you are stuck with the above. Even if you do, you are still limited to the watt density of sunlight as to how much power you get out of the conversion.

Wind power is no different.

[Flash]

Specify. Void argument fallacy.

DACA and Muslim ban for just two examples.

[BartenderElite]

You have no idea what you are talking about. It's that simple. You cannot change the watt density of sunlight. You cannot change the amount of energy in the wind. Those are absolutes. They always have been, always will be.

Do you even know how a photovoltaic cell works?

Here's a simplistic diagram



It is basically a photo-electric diode



As sunlight enters, it causes a difference in potential between the P and N material layers in the cell. That causes, in turn, electrical current to flow in proportion to the energy absorbed and the difference in electrical potential between the elements used to make up the two layers. Just like in a battery, this difference is determined by the elements used. The most voltage you can produce is about 2 VDC. A periodic table shows you that.

Simplified for your viewing:



The amperage out is directly proportional to the size of the cell and the amount of sunlight hitting it. The later is a fixed value, so the only thing you can do is increase cell size. But since you need more than 2 VDC, you have to limit cell size and use more cells. There's a trade off there.

NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS, OR THE NEXT 500 YEARS!

So, unless you invent a completely new way of converting sunlight to electrical energy you are stuck with the above. Even if you do, you are still limited to the watt density of sunlight as to how much power you get out of the conversion.

Wind power is no different.

You're talking about current technologies.

[T. A. Gardner]

You're talking about current technologies.

Which part of

So, unless you invent a completely new way of converting sunlight to electrical energy you are stuck with the above. Even if you do, you are still limited to the watt density of sunlight as to how much power you get out of the conversion.

Didn't you understand?