Biden To Shut Down Oil Industry

8,759 Views | 116 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Canada2017
KSGeo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to br53 • 10:09a, 10/23/20
Yeah obviously you'll have to use oil to transition away from oil. Nobody's saying close every well tomorrow. It's not some big gotcha to say I'm gonna have to keep living in my current house until my new house is ready.
KSGeo
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KSGeo • 10:10a, 10/23/20
KSGeo said:
Doc Holliday said:
KSGeo said:
Y'all some day oil will be the energy source of the past just like whale fat. Whoever transitions to what's next successfully will be the next power on the global stage. It's smart to start positioning for that.

Also, actual oil field workers live pretty precarious lives and have been screwed over by oil companies as much as the government. Ask anyone in West Texas. A lot of them would be happy to have stable jobs rebuilding our crumbling national infrastructure, which needs decades of work.
You have to let the market decide it. Forcing it will cause serious problems.

If they were serious about getting away from hydrocarbons, they would pursue nuclear which is 98% renewable.


The market's built around finance, which means you create a market with enough investment.
Well when they can assume a market worth $3.2+ Trillion in revenue...per year, then they will get there.

Reply Quote
5
1 edit
blackie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14a, 10/23/20
Anyone who believes we don't need to transition to renewables is going to be left in the past with hard to find fuel and paying very high prices for it. The key in what was said is transition. How fast will depend on many factors, but the transition should be made and there is no reason to not start it now. Many of the major oil companies are getting heavily involved in renewables. They know what the future holds.

We either transition as we can or struggle with cold turkey when that becomes necessary. Much safer for workers to work with renewables as well, not to mention the health of the people who have to live around refineries and drilling. Keeping our heads in the sand is a path to failure. It is irresponsible to not look to a transition.

And concerning nuclear (and I majored in physics and taught nuclear engineering when I was in the Navy), the problem is what to do with the spent fuel. I would look at nuclear as a stop along the path and not the destination. Also, are you willing to live near a reactor plant? I'm not.
Reply Quote
2
3 edits
Bearitto
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:19a, 10/23/20
Anyone who thinks transition to new energy sources won't happen organically and requires draconian government regulation, is an utter moron.
Mr. Bearitto was banned by the cowardly site owners because he stated that U.S. battleships should not be named after weak victims like Emmett Till, like Robby suggested. Apparently the site owners want a ship named in their honor some day. ;)
Reply Quote
12
1 edit
BearFan33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blackie • 10:26a, 10/23/20
blackie said:
Anyone who believes we don't need to transition to renewables is going to be left in the past with hard to find fuel and paying very high prices for it. The key in what was said is transition. How fast will depend on many factors, but the transition should be made and there is no reason to not start it now. Many of the major oil companies are getting heavily involved in renewables. They know what the future holds.

We either transition as we can or struggle with cold turkey when that becomes necessary. Much safer for workers to work with renewables as well, not to mention the health of the people who have to live around refineries and drilling. Keeping our heads in the sand is a path to failure. It is irresponsible to not look to a transition.

And concerning nuclear (and I majored in physics and taught nuclear engineering when I was in the Navy), the problem is what to do with the spent fuel. I would look at nuclear as a stop along the path and not the destination. Also, are you willing to live near a reactor plant? I'm not.
I agree with some of this. Transition will eventually have to be made. The pace and way of doing it is what is in debate. Also nuclear waste is a problem. We could send it into space but anyone remember the Challenger? And the costs of sending into space would make nuclear too expensive.

Blackie I am wondering if you read the Paris accords that Trump pulled out of? I did. It's a wealth redistribution model done on a global scale with guess who paying the bill. Of course the Europeans (and China) loved it. I'm glad Trump pulled out of that nonsense. Not saying we don't need to head in the direction of renewables but that wasn't the way.
Reply Quote
11
Jack and DP
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blackie • 10:33a, 10/23/20
blackie said:
Anyone who believes we don't need to transition to renewables is going to be left in the past with hard to find fuel and paying very high prices for it. The key in what was said is transition. How fast will depend on many factors, but the transition should be made and there is no reason to not start it now. Many of the major oil companies are getting heavily involved in renewables. They know what the future holds.

We either transition as we can or struggle with cold turkey when that becomes necessary. Much safer for workers to work with renewables as well, not to mention the health of the people who have to live around refineries and drilling. Keeping our heads in the sand is a path to failure. It is irresponsible to not look to a transition.

And concerning nuclear (and I majored in physics and taught nuclear engineering when I was in the Navy), the problem is what to do with the spent fuel. I would look at nuclear as a stop along the path and not the destination. Also, are you willing to live near a reactor plant? I'm not.


This is like saying that your one year old home will need to be replaced one day, so go ahead and start building a new one.
We have cheap energy in the US. Why not use it?
Reply Quote
7
Jack and DP
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:43a, 10/23/20
Reply Quote
2
Born_A_Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:30a, 10/23/20
Anyone vested in state of Texas retirement, ERS, should be concerned.
Reply Quote
5
nein51
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:58a, 10/23/20
He ended by saying pollution. This is a worthless argument. Dont preach to me or any american about pollution. It's like the teacher telling Lucy to clean up her desk while ignoring Pig Pen. Pollution is almost entirely a 2nd/3rd world problem. See also; China, India, East Asia, South America.

Nuclear energy is the correct answer. From a recent British study; a single 430 acre nuclear site produces enough power for 7% of the UK. Doing so with solar requires 130,000 acres and doing it with wind (depending on where the turbines are placed) was around 250,000 acres. 250,000 acres covers most of the state of Texas or more acreage than all of the UK combined...for 7% of the required energy.

That doesnt take into account the impact to the environment of the other solutions either.

Right now, renewable energy is not a reasonable solution. It is a really nice addition or supplement but we arent even close to making it a reality for 100% of homes and, to the best of my knowledge, there technology to do it in 5 years doesnt exist. If it existed tomorrow there's a 0% chance of being free of fossil fuels in 5 or 10 years.

Cant wait to see the solution for things like cargo/container ships, rail, trucking fleets, plastics.
Reply Quote
6
blackie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack and DP • 1:06p, 10/23/20
Jack and DP said:
blackie said:
Anyone who believes we don't need to transition to renewables is going to be left in the past with hard to find fuel and paying very high prices for it. The key in what was said is transition. How fast will depend on many factors, but the transition should be made and there is no reason to not start it now. Many of the major oil companies are getting heavily involved in renewables. They know what the future holds.

We either transition as we can or struggle with cold turkey when that becomes necessary. Much safer for workers to work with renewables as well, not to mention the health of the people who have to live around refineries and drilling. Keeping our heads in the sand is a path to failure. It is irresponsible to not look to a transition.

And concerning nuclear (and I majored in physics and taught nuclear engineering when I was in the Navy), the problem is what to do with the spent fuel. I would look at nuclear as a stop along the path and not the destination. Also, are you willing to live near a reactor plant? I'm not.


This is like saying that your one year old home will need to be replaced one day, so go ahead and start building a new one.
We have cheap energy in the US. Why not use it?
Looks like we are, but that doesn't mean to not proceed with working on technologies to move out of carbon when we need to. My electricity from my power company is already heavily wind based. The time to start doing something is not when you you have to. That is a reason Medicare and Social Security is nearing the cliff.

And to the other comment we don't need some kind of international accord to start laying the ground work for transition to renewables. I thought we were suppose to be self sufficient and America leads or is that just a political talking point. This is nothing but stubborn politics.

I am concerned about what we are doing to the environment as I have seen changes first hand during my life. You don't even have to talk about climate change. Just look at the air in many of our cities. One side effect of the pandemic and the shutdowns has been the before and after pictures of the air above cities which really point out how crappy we have allowed our air to become.......and we have been breathing this junk for decades. I don't see how anyone cannot believe that has negatively affected our health.
Reply Quote
blackie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nein51 • 1:12p, 10/23/20
nein51 said:
He ended by saying pollution. This is a worthless argument. Dont preach to me or any american about pollution. It's like the teacher telling Lucy to clean up her desk while ignoring Pig Pen. Pollution is almost entirely a 2nd/3rd world problem. See also; China, India, East Asia, South America.

Nuclear energy is the correct answer. From a recent British study; a single 430 acre nuclear site produces enough power for 7% of the UK. Doing so with solar requires 130,000 acres and doing it with wind (depending on where the turbines are placed) was around 250,000 acres. 250,000 acres covers most of the state of Texas or more acreage than all of the UK combined...for 7% of the required energy.

That doesnt take into account the impact to the environment of the other solutions either.

Right now, renewable energy is not a reasonable solution. It is a really nice addition or supplement but we arent even close to making it a reality for 100% of homes and, to the best of my knowledge, there technology to do it in 5 years doesnt exist. If it existed tomorrow there's a 0% chance of being free of fossil fuels in 5 or 10 years.

Cant wait to see the solution for things like cargo/container ships, rail, trucking fleets, plastics.
It is not an all or nothing choice. But someday we will have to do something. We will run out of stuff in the ground at some point. I would guess the option for things like your last sentence would be nuclear at this point as we do with many of our Navy ships. But I suspect that if we invest in technology there will be better methods as we move later into this century. No one, including Biden, is saying this is a cold turkey change. People need to stop flying the red herring flag that it is. But if we don't start truly investing in the developing such technologies, we are really putting our future generations behind the eight ball.
Reply Quote
1
nein51
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blackie • 1:26p, 10/23/20
We are already doing "stuff". There are boatloads of turbines; most of So Cal is covered with them, for example. The future or energy is long term 25+ years or more...not 5.

I don't think the world is ready for nuclear powered container ships that are flagged in Moldova. Also working on a nuclear ship is incredibly specialized...most ship hands are making like $6/hr from the Philippines or India and barely qualified to chip barnacles. Turns out months at sea isn't that attractive.

Again, anything is possible but the current solutions, even scaled up, are not the answer and there's no chance at all that future is a decade away...and all of that ignores that most "green" technology is an environmental disaster. Take a look at the mining for those batteries, the wildlife pattern changes due to windmills, the components for the solar panels...the energy needed to produce those items, etc.

Reply Quote
4
BUbearinARK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:17p, 10/23/20
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/26/why-wind-turbines-threaten-endangered-species-with-extinction/#54237f6364b4

Wind some, lose some
Reply Quote
2
cinque
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:26p, 10/23/20
When is he going to shut it down. February?
Make Racism Wrong Again
Reply Quote
Iron Claw
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blackie • 2:31p, 10/23/20
blackie said:
nein51 said:
He ended by saying pollution. This is a worthless argument. Dont preach to me or any american about pollution. It's like the teacher telling Lucy to clean up her desk while ignoring Pig Pen. Pollution is almost entirely a 2nd/3rd world problem. See also; China, India, East Asia, South America.

Nuclear energy is the correct answer. From a recent British study; a single 430 acre nuclear site produces enough power for 7% of the UK. Doing so with solar requires 130,000 acres and doing it with wind (depending on where the turbines are placed) was around 250,000 acres. 250,000 acres covers most of the state of Texas or more acreage than all of the UK combined...for 7% of the required energy.

That doesnt take into account the impact to the environment of the other solutions either.

Right now, renewable energy is not a reasonable solution. It is a really nice addition or supplement but we arent even close to making it a reality for 100% of homes and, to the best of my knowledge, there technology to do it in 5 years doesnt exist. If it existed tomorrow there's a 0% chance of being free of fossil fuels in 5 or 10 years.

Cant wait to see the solution for things like cargo/container ships, rail, trucking fleets, plastics.
It is not an all or nothing choice. But someday we will have to do something. We will run out of stuff in the ground at some point. I would guess the option for things like your last sentence would be nuclear at this point as we do with many of our Navy ships. But I suspect that if we invest in technology there will be better methods as we move later into this century. No one, including Biden, is saying this is a cold turkey change. People need to stop flying the red herring flag that it is. But if we don't start truly investing in the developing such technologies, we are really putting our future generations behind the eight ball.


Uh, five years to zero emissions is pretty close to cold-turkey.
FKA tri it
Reply Quote
9
Iron Claw
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nein51 • 2:38p, 10/23/20
nein51 said:
He ended by saying pollution. This is a worthless argument. Dont preach to me or any american about pollution. It's like the teacher telling Lucy to clean up her desk while ignoring Pig Pen. Pollution is almost entirely a 2nd/3rd world problem. See also; China, India, East Asia, South America.

Nuclear energy is the correct answer. From a recent British study; a single 430 acre nuclear site produces enough power for 7% of the UK. Doing so with solar requires 130,000 acres and doing it with wind (depending on where the turbines are placed) was around 250,000 acres. 250,000 acres covers most of the state of Texas or more acreage than all of the UK combined...for 7% of the required energy.

That doesnt take into account the impact to the environment of the other solutions either.

Right now, renewable energy is not a reasonable solution. It is a really nice addition or supplement but we arent even close to making it a reality for 100% of homes and, to the best of my knowledge, there technology to do it in 5 years doesnt exist. If it existed tomorrow there's a 0% chance of being free of fossil fuels in 5 or 10 years.

Cant wait to see the solution for things like cargo/container ships, rail, trucking fleets, plastics.


I was about to post a similar argument about the amount of land necessary to rely on wind and solar.

Going to need a bunch of petroleum to build that infrastructure. Also going to need a lot of land to dispose of those highly polluting batteries in all those electric cars.

I'm hoping it's an oversight in your argument, because Texas covers almost 172 million acres.

I'm a fan of nuclear, myself.
FKA tri it
Reply Quote
2
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:00p, 10/23/20
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off. I'm in Oil and Gas Business. **** off Joe!
Reply Quote
12
1 edit
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 3:01p, 10/23/20
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off.
What was it that got ya? He might lock us down again? Gonna tax the **** out of you? Wiping out fossil fuels (la la land)? Universal healthcare?

I've been saying all along I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen but Biden is making me think I might have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Trump. I do not want to do it. I'd like Texas to look safe so I can go ahead and vote Jorgensen.
Reply Quote
4
Ursus Americanus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BUbearinARK • 3:04p, 10/23/20
BUbearinARK said:
Ursus Americanus said:
Jack and DP said:
Probably lost Pennsylvania with the oil bit.
People forget how important petroleum products are far beyond fuel.

Every hipster's vinyl records are petroleum products.

Latex condoms and XY Jelly, PPE gear, or imagine trying to bring down the cost of healthcare and living without plastics?

Even the components in a Tesla, paint job on a Prius, or Hunter Biden's laptop are petroleum products.
And even blessed vaccines. Makes the world gonround at this point.


Now, tell me more about xy jelly. Piqued my curiosity.
Joe Biden may be as old as the dinosaurs, but unlike him we still have use for them.
Reply Quote
5
Brian Ethridge
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ursus Americanus • 3:07p, 10/23/20
Staff
Ursus Americanus said:
BUbearinARK said:
Ursus Americanus said:
Jack and DP said:
Probably lost Pennsylvania with the oil bit.
People forget how important petroleum products are far beyond fuel.

Every hipster's vinyl records are petroleum products.

Latex condoms and XY Jelly, PPE gear, or imagine trying to bring down the cost of healthcare and living without plastics?

Even the components in a Tesla, paint job on a Prius, or Hunter Biden's laptop are petroleum products.
And even blessed vaccines. Makes the world gonround at this point.


Now, tell me more about xy jelly. Piqued my curiosity.
Joe Biden may be as old as the dinosaurs, but unlike him we still have use for them.

via GIPHY

Reply Quote
BUbearinARK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ursus Americanus • 3:09p, 10/23/20
br53
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Robert Wilson • 3:16p, 10/23/20
Robert Wilson said:
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off.
What was it that got ya? He might lock us down again? Gonna tax the **** out of you? Wiping out fossil fuels (la la land)? Universal healthcare?

I've been saying all along I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen but Biden is making me think I might have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Trump. I do not want to do it. I'd like Texas to look safe so I can go ahead and vote Jorgensen.
A vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Biden
Reply Quote
7
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to br53 • 3:17p, 10/23/20
br53 said:
Robert Wilson said:
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off.
What was it that got ya? He might lock us down again? Gonna tax the **** out of you? Wiping out fossil fuels (la la land)? Universal healthcare?

I've been saying all along I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen but Biden is making me think I might have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Trump. I do not want to do it. I'd like Texas to look safe so I can go ahead and vote Jorgensen.
A vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Biden
Biden would say a vote for anyone but Biden in Texas is a vote for Trump
Reply Quote
1
Nguyen One Soon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nein51 • 3:21p, 10/23/20
nein51 said:


Nuclear energy is the correct answer. From a recent British study; a single 430 acre nuclear site produces enough power for 7% of the UK. Doing so with solar requires 130,000 acres and doing it with wind (depending on where the turbines are placed) was around 250,000 acres. 250,000 acres covers most of the state of Texas or more acreage than all of the UK combined...for 7% of the required energy.
So guess you've never farmed, or you might have a better idea how big an acre is. 250,000 acres is 390.625 square miles. For comparison, Brewster County, Texas is 6,192 square miles.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nguyen One Soon • 3:30p, 10/23/20
Nguyen One Soon said:
nein51 said:


Nuclear energy is the correct answer. From a recent British study; a single 430 acre nuclear site produces enough power for 7% of the UK. Doing so with solar requires 130,000 acres and doing it with wind (depending on where the turbines are placed) was around 250,000 acres. 250,000 acres covers most of the state of Texas or more acreage than all of the UK combined...for 7% of the required energy.
So guess you've never farmed, or you might have a better idea how big an acre is. 250,000 acres is 390.625 square miles. For comparison, Brewster County, Texas is 6,192 square miles.
The Waggoner ranch is 500,000 acres - all contiguous. The King Ranch is about 800,000 acres but comprised of noncontiguous pieces. I don't know how many acres Texas is, but 250k ain't a drop in the bucket. There are a number of ranches bigger than that.
Reply Quote
br53
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Robert Wilson • 3:35p, 10/23/20
Robert Wilson said:
br53 said:
Robert Wilson said:
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off.
What was it that got ya? He might lock us down again? Gonna tax the **** out of you? Wiping out fossil fuels (la la land)? Universal healthcare?

I've been saying all along I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen but Biden is making me think I might have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Trump. I do not want to do it. I'd like Texas to look safe so I can go ahead and vote Jorgensen.
A vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Biden
Biden would say a vote for anyone but Biden in Texas is a vote for Trump


Biden would say a vote for anyone but Biden means you ain't blaque
Reply Quote
2
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to br53 • 4:06p, 10/23/20
br53 said:
Robert Wilson said:
br53 said:
Robert Wilson said:
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off.
What was it that got ya? He might lock us down again? Gonna tax the **** out of you? Wiping out fossil fuels (la la land)? Universal healthcare?

I've been saying all along I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen but Biden is making me think I might have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Trump. I do not want to do it. I'd like Texas to look safe so I can go ahead and vote Jorgensen.
A vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Biden
Biden would say a vote for anyone but Biden in Texas is a vote for Trump
Biden would say a vote for anyone but Biden means you ain't blaque
Hey now. No one questions my blaqueness.
Reply Quote
2
Stranger
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Canada2017 • 4:09p, 10/23/20
Canada2017 said:
Gruvin said:
DioNoZeus said:
I'm sure this really resonated with Biden's favorite town, Scranton
and millions of oil and gas employees all over this great nation...

Airlines, shipping, lubricants for windmills. . .

And the railroads , truck drivers , welders , pipe fitters , anyone in an energy related industry .

Been saying it for months .


It's not about personalities...it's about policies .

And Dem policies will destroy our standard of living .
Reply Quote
Jack and DP
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:19p, 10/23/20
Reply Quote
2
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Robert Wilson • 4:29p, 10/23/20
Robert Wilson said:
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off.
What was it that got ya? He might lock us down again? Gonna tax the **** out of you? Wiping out fossil fuels (la la land)? Universal healthcare?

I've been saying all along I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen but Biden is making me think I might have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Trump. I do not want to do it. I'd like Texas to look safe so I can go ahead and vote Jorgensen
fossile fuels . That is my business. I'm not terribly worried about taxes as I will figure a way around, but don't come after my business. **** off, Joe
Reply Quote
1
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 4:34p, 10/23/20
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off. I'm in Oil and Gas Business. **** off Joe!


Win or lose

I'm buying all the drinks here in Colorado when we finally have dinner .
Reply Quote
2
Friscobear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Robert Wilson • 4:36p, 10/23/20
Robert Wilson said:
Nguyen One Soon said:
nein51 said:


Nuclear energy is the correct answer. From a recent British study; a single 430 acre nuclear site produces enough power for 7% of the UK. Doing so with solar requires 130,000 acres and doing it with wind (depending on where the turbines are placed) was around 250,000 acres. 250,000 acres covers most of the state of Texas or more acreage than all of the UK combined...for 7% of the required energy.
So guess you've never farmed, or you might have a better idea how big an acre is. 250,000 acres is 390.625 square miles. For comparison, Brewster County, Texas is 6,192 square miles.
The Waggoner ranch is 500,000 acres - all contiguous. The King Ranch is about 800,000 acres but comprised of noncontiguous pieces. I don't know how many acres Texas is, but 250k ain't a drop in the bucket. There are a number of ranches bigger than that.
But that 250,000 acres was only 7% of the demand. It would take a LOT of land just to power Texas.
Reply Quote
2
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Canada2017 • 4:39p, 10/23/20
Canada2017 said:
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off. I'm in Oil and Gas Business. **** off Joe!


Win or lose

I'm buying all the drinks here in Colorado when we finally have dinner .
You may need to. J.R. may be a little short after he pays me my $400. AckAckAckAckAck!!!!
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Reply Quote
Friscobear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blackie • 4:40p, 10/23/20
blackie said:
Jack and DP said:
blackie said:
Anyone who believes we don't need to transition to renewables is going to be left in the past with hard to find fuel and paying very high prices for it. The key in what was said is transition. How fast will depend on many factors, but the transition should be made and there is no reason to not start it now. Many of the major oil companies are getting heavily involved in renewables. They know what the future holds.

We either transition as we can or struggle with cold turkey when that becomes necessary. Much safer for workers to work with renewables as well, not to mention the health of the people who have to live around refineries and drilling. Keeping our heads in the sand is a path to failure. It is irresponsible to not look to a transition.

And concerning nuclear (and I majored in physics and taught nuclear engineering when I was in the Navy), the problem is what to do with the spent fuel. I would look at nuclear as a stop along the path and not the destination. Also, are you willing to live near a reactor plant? I'm not.


This is like saying that your one year old home will need to be replaced one day, so go ahead and start building a new one.
We have cheap energy in the US. Why not use it?

I am concerned about what we are doing to the environment as I have seen changes first hand during my life. You don't even have to talk about climate change. Just look at the air in many of our cities. One side effect of the pandemic and the shutdowns has been the before and after pictures of the air above cities which really point out how crappy we have allowed our air to become.......and we have been breathing this junk for decades. I don't see how anyone cannot believe that has negatively affected our health.
You don't remember how bad smog was in the 70's? We are infinitely better off today.
Reply Quote
6
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 4:42p, 10/23/20
J.R. said:
Robert Wilson said:
J.R. said:
JR is officially voting for the worst human I know...that would be Trump. (I ****ing hate that guy). But after last night.... Joe can piss off.
What was it that got ya? He might lock us down again? Gonna tax the **** out of you? Wiping out fossil fuels (la la land)? Universal healthcare?

I've been saying all along I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen but Biden is making me think I might have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Trump. I do not want to do it. I'd like Texas to look safe so I can go ahead and vote Jorgensen
fossile fuels . That is my business. I'm not terribly worried about taxes as I will figure a way around, but don't come after my business. **** off, Joe


I understand well. That's what makes me laugh about the tax thing. People think they're gonna tax the rich. The rich can find workarounds. You end up just hammering high W-2 upper middle class or lower upper class types.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.