I think some people seem to be under the impression that domestic/local oil production correlates with lower domestic/local energy prices, as if Exxon give an “USA” discount. I think the reality is closer to this: Exxon puts that oil in the same tanks as oil from anyplace else in the world, and sells it back to Americans at the same price it sells it at in India. Please correct me if I’m wrong…
OT: Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power "Fails On Every Count"
- Thread starter FRA10Thunderbolt
- Start date
- Status
Best Chris Christie moment was him putting Rand Paul in his place on the money that Kentucky gets vs NJ / NY etc.
No, that's generally true.
I just didn't understand the point of putting oil rigs off the coast of NJ. There's no oil there.
The amounts are huge, tens of billions of dollars per year taken from CA, NY and NJ and given to welfare red states.
Guess which parts of the state get the most welfare and how they vote. Trenton, Camden and so on.
It’s a relatively minor problem. I had read that all of the spent fuel covers an area about the size of a single football field. More of a NIMBY problem than an engineering one.
Petroleum geology is so much more elegant than that. Where oil is and is not is one of the most fascinating topics.
Not to mention the presence of oil does not mean there's always enough to be economically viable.
Usually it's not a question of quantity, but of quality. A minority percentage of all oil is "usable" for commercial purposes. Not enough temperature or pressure and it's "undercooked", too much and it's "overcooked".
For decades oil companies struggled to understand whether a petroleum deposit was commercially viable absent the expense of drilling and testing. It was a petrologist and paleontologist from Brooklyn (of all places) named Anita Harris who is recognized with discovering a simple test. She spent years studying conodonts - the toothlike structures belonging to a type of eel that lived across the Paleozoic / Triassic boundary from ~541 million years ago to ~252 million years ago. Conodonts are contemporaneous with the marine algae deposits in warm, shallow seas that would eventually become oil. The eels lived in those seas. So where you find conodont fossils, there's usually oil.
More important is the fact that conodonts are found in a spectrum of colors from pale / almost white to nearly black. Paleontologists for many years simply wrote the difference off as local variation, species variation, etc. Turns out they change color depending on temperature and pressure and there is a direct correlation between conodont color and the commercial viability of adjacent petroleum - the favored color being "coffee with light cream".
Since 1977 every oil company in the world has employed a fleet of paleontologists specializing in conodonts.
Trust the science. Liberal policies are the main cause of global warming.
Lololololol and the conservative push for fossil fuels especially coal is GOOD for the air....thanks for the laughs....
that's part of a state, but the red states are the most moochers.
I see you graduated from the Trump School of Science - keep repeating a lie in the hope that you'll convince people it's true. Fortunately, it only works on morons and not actual scientists or critical thinkers.
It worked on all those people who called covid a hoax and threw covid parties and then wound up in the ICU or the morgue. By the way, it's Trump University School of Science, sponsored by Clorox bleach and GE light bulbs.
Excellent news!
Thanks for starting this thread, @BROTHERSKINNY!! I might have missed this encouraging wind growth update, otherwise.
Another stupid and inaccurate meme. Try doing a little reading or research before posting, so you don't look so foolish. EVs aren't "zero emissions" and should never have been sold as such by some environmentalists, but they're clearly better than hybrids and especially gas-powered cars from a total lifecycle (including CO2 produced from making the batteries) and per year amount of CO2 produced. Here's an excerpt of a report from MIT (which also includes a comparison to data generated by the DOE).
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
The researchers found that, on average, gasoline cars emit more than 350 grams of CO2 per mile driven over their lifetimes. The hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, meanwhile, scored at around 260 grams per mile of carbon dioxide, while the fully battery-electric vehicle created just 200 grams. Stats from the U.S. Department of Energy tell a similar story: Using the nationwide average of different energy sources, DOE found that EVs create 3,932 lbs. of CO2 equivalent per year, compared to 5,772 lbs. for plug-in hybrids, 6,258 lbs. for typical hybrids, and 11,435 lbs. for gasoline vehicles.
It’s all ********!! The volcano that just erupted in Russia released tens of millions of metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere way more than all industrialized world has released in the 150 years or so of mass industrialization!
You climate nutters are playing a game that humans cannot control and electric cars will not help one bit.
Electric cars = less maintenance, don’t have to waste time at gas station, not effected by gas price fluctuations, cheaper to fill up, better driving experience, less smog and pollution
So much winning!!!
So much winning!!!
Good post.
Just to expand on the "zero emissions" theme, they're zero tailpipe emissions, which is the concept around which the ZE terminology originated. A simplification but not a particularly egregious one from an advertising perspective.
Thanks. It was egregious to me, because it's totally inaccurate and hurts credibility unnecessarily. EVs are still a huge improvement, emissions-wise and that stands on its own without exaggerating.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a 5-year old stamping his feet and spewing nonsense. As per the article below, even major volcanic eruptions typically only emit about 10-50 MM metric tons of CO2, which is a drop in the bucket when compared to the 29 billion metric tons of C02 emitted per year by humanity (that's with a "b" - a billion is a 1000 times more than a million, just in case you weren't aware). Again, do a little research before you post or ask a grown-up to help you with your posts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/?sh=7492cecf5cbf
When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2 per year – and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year – compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere since 1750. In fact, even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.
I think he meant the "sophisticated" Obama birthday bash on Martha's Vineyard...turns out that "sophistication" protected better than masks... SCIENCE!
(above: the morning after)
Nice try, but why would anyone who was fully vaccinated in August 2021 need to wear a mask outdoors?I think he meant the "sophisticated" Obama birthday bash on Martha's Vineyard...turns out that "sophistication" protected better than masks... SCIENCE!
(above: the morning after)
Air-conditioned walled tents you mean. Packed with people... scratch that.. sophisticated people. Meanwhile, some states were arresting people alone on beaches.
I suppose you were completely unaware at the time how badly that looked.. how hypocritical. I don't blame you for trying to forget about it and change history.
People were being arrested alone on the beach in Summer '21?
Or you forgot to take your meds again?
When I see a thread with this title, my thought is that the OP is one of those guys who thinks the horse and buggy industry is here to stay.
But, hey, keep searching for evidence that will support technology denying idiocy. It's fun to watch.
But, hey, keep searching for evidence that will support technology denying idiocy. It's fun to watch.
Huh? That's the reality. What else should people go with?
You always forget that not everybody adopts the whacky fevered 24/7 narratives that drive some of you to obsession. The mask and vaccine "debate" was completely nutty. At no point did the government ever force me to either wear a mask or get a vaccine.
Meanwhile, I've had all the vaccines and barely ever wore a mask for anything except when a food store or doctor's office or hospital required it. Oh gosh, my rights were soooooooooooo violated.
Considering that in June 2021, I said we'd have full stadiums without masks for football season (since outdoors) and a full RAC, with masks likely for basketball season (since indoors) and was right on those, why would I have had an issue with an outdoor party without masks?
We had a couple of parties at our house without masks that summer and I never wore a mask after being fully vaccinated at the end of March 2021 unless requested to do so, since the vaccines made the risks from infection essentially like a flu, which didn't worry me.
- Status