Biden just pledged to shut down 60% of America’s electric power

[Stryder50]

This is a reasonable post. Clean coal is pretty much a hoax.

This is way down the road, but these latest breakthroughs prove it's possible.

"clean coal" is something the USA, and most of the West, have been working on for a few decades now. The following post from another thread, done earlier today gives more details. What is done with the flue/smoke after combustion is what determines the "clean";
..........
Here's the aspect of use of coal either unknown, not understood, or misrepresented by many involved in the energy vs. environment matrix.

1st : Doesn't matter which type of coal one burns, "clean coal" has most to do with how you treat the post combustion results. Major concern has been with the large amounts sulfur dioxide, SO2, coming out of the "smokestack"; which is the main cause of acid rain and other pollution's.

2nd : Responsible use of coal for power(electrical energy) involves how one deals with the combustion aftermath, the flue/'smoke' and Western nations have been involved in addressing this for nearly two centuries now. Blunt term is: "Flue-Gas DeSulfurization" ~ FGD.

Select excerpts;
...
Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) is a set of technologies used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from exhaust flue gases of fossil-fuel power plants, and from the emissions of other sulfur oxide emitting processes such as waste incineration, petroleum refineries, cement and lime kilns.

Methods​

Since stringent environmental regulations limiting SO2 emissions have been enacted in many countries, SO2 is being removed from flue gases by a variety of methods. Common methods used:

• Wet scrubbing using a slurry of alkaline sorbent, usually limestone or lime, or seawater to scrub gases;
• Spray-dry scrubbing using similar sorbent slurries;
• Wet sulfuric acid process recovering sulfur in the form of commercial quality sulfuric acid;
• SNOX Flue gas desulfurization removes sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates from flue gases;
• Dry sorbent injection systems that introduce powdered hydrated lime (or other sorbent material) into exhaust ducts to eliminate SO2 and SO3 from process emissions.[1]

For a typical coal-fired power station, flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) may remove 90 per cent or more of the SO2 in the flue gases.[2]

History​

Methods of removing sulfur dioxide from boiler and furnace exhaust gases have been studied for over 150 years. Early ideas for flue gas desulfurization were established in England around 1850.

With the construction of large-scale power plants in England in the 1920s, the problems associated with large volumes of SO2 from a single site began to concern the public. The SO2 emissions problem did not receive much attention until 1929, when the House of Lords upheld the claim of a landowner against the Barton Electricity Works of the Manchester Corporation for damages to his land resulting from SO2 emissions. Shortly thereafter, a press campaign was launched against the erection of power plants within the confines of London. This outcry led to the imposition of SO2 controls on all such power plants.[3]

The first major FGD unit at a utility was installed in 1931 at Battersea Power Station, owned by London Power Company. In 1935, an FGD system similar to that installed at Battersea went into service at Swansea Power Station. The third major FGD system was installed in 1938 at Fulham Power Station. These three early large-scale FGD installations were suspended during World War II, because the characteristic white vapour plumes would have aided location by enemy aircraft.[4] ...
..........

Flue-gas desulfurization - Wikipedia ​

en.wikipedia.org



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Problem/Challenge with other global coal burners like PRC-China and India is that they don't do the "EPA" thing and treat the combustion aftermath, the SO2 laden Flue, and 'Clean' the results of the coal burning they have done.

Most Western nations have "EPA" mandates of sorts where they clean up their toxins from coal burning/use via FGD systems.

Unfortunately, with a world that is round and where we all are downhill with regards to other's "pollution" and uphill in regards to our own "pollution"; having rogue polluter nations like China and India dumping sulfur dioxide and other contaminates into the shared atmosphere means the responsible nations are negatively impacted by the irresponsible nations.

Could such be considered enough global health hazard as to be a cause belie for War ???

BTW, in the photo above, that's steam - water vapor and CO2 coming out of the tall stacks.

 

[Stryder50]

My last employment was with a firm that made major components for FGD systems. One of the more interesting projects was for a custom in Canada where next to their coal fueled electrical power plant was a complex of several acres of greenhouse grow operation, mostly for hothouse tomatoes. The FGD treated flue, now mostly warm, moist(water vapor, H2O) and CO2 rich "smoke" was piped into those greenhouses to provide a warm , water vapor and CO2 rich atmosphere to grow those "hothouse" tomatoes!

A perfect example of how current, modern technology can be used to solve/facilitate a variety of applications that blend diverse productive needs. The coal burning produces electricity. The flue/smoke, after FGD treatment provides ideal growing atmosphere for a greenhouse grown crop.

What is needed now is for more concerned parties to realize there are many workable solutions that can provide multiple rewards and results beyond the narrow extremes advocated by blind partisan factions.

 

[Stryder50]

Until we find a way to massively increase the power output from solar and wind, nuclear is our best option with coal being right there behind it.

I did a write up awhile back about how many windmills would be needed if we converted all cars to electricity, if my numbers were right, you’d have to cover 50% of the available land mass in the United States with windmills, just to be able to cover the power needed to charge all of the electric cars…that’s not including rest of the electricity we use.

There’s simply not enough land in the United States to go fully wind or solar.

We need more nuclear and coal plants to be able to even come close to having enough energy for going with all electric cars…

Also, where did all the talk about “clean coal” go? Wasn’t that a thing just few years ago?

'Windmills' might have a slight aesthetic value but is far from a practical solution. For the reasons you point out and also for the fact that the wind doesn't always blow, especially when you might want it to.

At least once a year we drive East over the Cascades to Spokane~Montana, and back. We pass by dozens of windmills on the Eastern slopes approaching the Columbia Gorge near Vantage. Most of the time only a few are slowly turning and the majority are just at standstill. Not much energy coming out of them versus their costs.

Only way solar could work to meet reasonable needs, load demand, would be if they were orbiting arrays in geosynchronous orbit, about 24,000 miles out in space. Would still need scores of large receiver antennae arrays down here on Earth's surface where the electricity up there, converted to microwaves and beamed down here, could be received and converted back into electricity to feed the grid. Of course that only pencils out as part of(purpose for) major space colony program where most of the raw materials, converted to finished products/components is done on the Moon, and maybe the occasional asteroid.

Long term and very expensive project, but with some carbon resources ("fossil fuels") likely to run out within a century or two, worth considering getting this ball in motion so the transition can be made before situation is too desperate.

 

[Stryder50]

Major fallacy of the ACC/AGW "Climate Crisis" is that CO2 is the main cause of it all. At about 400ppm, or one part for every 2,500 other items in the atmosphere, it will cause the planet to "burn up".

Well ...

The problem starts with the decline in any real science knowledge among the general population in the last few decades, ...

Compounded with conditioning to blind belief and trust in "experts", ...

Then spun by the Global Wealthy Elites and the scientists and politicians they've bought/own to spread the lies about "Climate Change": and fan the flames of fear and panic among the ignorant public masses so they can be manipulated to endanger their future (and likely reduce global population numbers drastically).


Code:

~~~~~~~~
[HEADING=1]The Earliest Atmosphere[/HEADING]
[HEADING=1](4.6 billion years ago)[/HEADING]

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an         atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere. After about half a billion years, Earth’s surface cooled and solidified enough for water to collect on it.
https://forces.si.edu/atmosphere/02_02_01.html
.....
During the Archean Eon, methane droplets in the air shrouded the young Earth in a global haze. There was no oxygen gas on Earth. Oxygen was only in compounds such as water. Complex chemical reactions in the young oceans transformed carbon-containing molecules into simple, living cells that did not need oxygen to live. Instead they made energy out of sulfur and other elements.

2.7 billion years ago, bluish-green microscopic organisms called cyanobacteria flourished in Earth’s oceans. They made gaseous, or free, oxygen from carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight—the process called photosynthesis. As cyanobacteria created more free oxygen, the amount  of oxygen in the atmosphere reached one percent of today’s level, which is 21 percent.
[HEADING=2]Forecast: Paradox[/HEADING]
Three billion years ago, the sun was only about 70 percent as bright as it is today. Earth should have frozen over, but it didn’t. Why not? Because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly methane and carbon dioxide, trapped enough of the sun’s heat to keep temperatures above freezing.
...
https://forces.si.edu/atmosphere/02_02_02.html
~~~~~~~

Oxygen at Last (2.6 billion to 400 million years ago)​

Life and Earth’s atmosphere evolved together. Over time, tiny photosynthetic organisms produced enough oxygen to react with the methane in the atmosphere, transforming it forever. About two billion years ago, the methane haze cleared and the sky turned blue.
...

Oxygen at Last
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above begins to clue a foundation of the problem we face:

1st ; General ignorance of science and the processes involved in Earth's early history and slow evolution of life towards an environment that could support early animal life.

2nd ; The fact that Earth had scores higher levels of CO2 Billions of years ago, initially no Oxygen, and average global temperatures much warmer than now, or falsely predicted to increase by the ACC/AGW fanatics.

 

[Nostra]

My last employment was with a firm that made major components for FGD systems. One of the more interesting projects was for a custom in Canada where next to their coal fueled electrical power plant was a complex of several acres of greenhouse grow operation, mostly for hothouse tomatoes. The FGD treated flue, now mostly warm, moist(water vapor, H2O) and CO2 rich "smoke" was piped into those greenhouses to provide a warm , water vapor and CO2 rich atmosphere to grow those "hothouse" tomatoes!

A perfect example of how current, modern technology can be used to solve/facilitate a variety of applications that blend diverse productive needs. The coal burning produces electricity. The flue/smoke, after FGD treatment provides ideal growing atmosphere for a greenhouse grown crop.

What is needed now is for more concerned parties to realize there are many workable solutions that can provide multiple rewards and results beyond the narrow extremes advocated by blind partisan factions.

So Kanadians have been rotting their brains eating coal tomatoes. Explains alot.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

"clean coal" is something the USA, and most of the West, have been working on for a few decades now. The following post from another thread, done earlier today gives more details. What is done with the flue/smoke after combustion is what determines the "clean";
..........
Here's the aspect of use of coal either unknown, not understood, or misrepresented by many involved in the energy vs. environment matrix.

1st : Doesn't matter which type of coal one burns, "clean coal" has most to do with how you treat the post combustion results. Major concern has been with the large amounts sulfur dioxide, SO2, coming out of the "smokestack"; which is the main cause of acid rain and other pollution's.

2nd : Responsible use of coal for power(electrical energy) involves how one deals with the combustion aftermath, the flue/'smoke' and Western nations have been involved in addressing this for nearly two centuries now. Blunt term is: "Flue-Gas DeSulfurization" ~ FGD.

Select excerpts;
...
Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) is a set of technologies used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from exhaust flue gases of fossil-fuel power plants, and from the emissions of other sulfur oxide emitting processes such as waste incineration, petroleum refineries, cement and lime kilns.

Methods​

Since stringent environmental regulations limiting SO2 emissions have been enacted in many countries, SO2 is being removed from flue gases by a variety of methods. Common methods used:

• Wet scrubbing using a slurry of alkaline sorbent, usually limestone or lime, or seawater to scrub gases;
• Spray-dry scrubbing using similar sorbent slurries;
• Wet sulfuric acid process recovering sulfur in the form of commercial quality sulfuric acid;
• SNOX Flue gas desulfurization removes sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates from flue gases;
• Dry sorbent injection systems that introduce powdered hydrated lime (or other sorbent material) into exhaust ducts to eliminate SO2 and SO3 from process emissions.[1]

For a typical coal-fired power station, flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) may remove 90 per cent or more of the SO2 in the flue gases.[2]

History​

Methods of removing sulfur dioxide from boiler and furnace exhaust gases have been studied for over 150 years. Early ideas for flue gas desulfurization were established in England around 1850.

With the construction of large-scale power plants in England in the 1920s, the problems associated with large volumes of SO2 from a single site began to concern the public. The SO2 emissions problem did not receive much attention until 1929, when the House of Lords upheld the claim of a landowner against the Barton Electricity Works of the Manchester Corporation for damages to his land resulting from SO2 emissions. Shortly thereafter, a press campaign was launched against the erection of power plants within the confines of London. This outcry led to the imposition of SO2 controls on all such power plants.[3]

The first major FGD unit at a utility was installed in 1931 at Battersea Power Station, owned by London Power Company. In 1935, an FGD system similar to that installed at Battersea went into service at Swansea Power Station. The third major FGD system was installed in 1938 at Fulham Power Station. These three early large-scale FGD installations were suspended during World War II, because the characteristic white vapour plumes would have aided location by enemy aircraft.[4] ...
..........

Flue-gas desulfurization - Wikipedia ​

en.wikipedia.org



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Problem/Challenge with other global coal burners like PRC-China and India is that they don't do the "EPA" thing and treat the combustion aftermath, the SO2 laden Flue, and 'Clean' the results of the coal burning they have done.

Most Western nations have "EPA" mandates of sorts where they clean up their toxins from coal burning/use via FGD systems.

Unfortunately, with a world that is round and where we all are downhill with regards to other's "pollution" and uphill in regards to our own "pollution"; having rogue polluter nations like China and India dumping sulfur dioxide and other contaminates into the shared atmosphere means the responsible nations are negatively impacted by the irresponsible nations.

Could such be considered enough global health hazard as to be a cause belie for War ???

BTW, in the photo above, that's steam - water vapor and CO2 coming out of the tall stacks.

Thanks for the information.

One problem with this is expense. Why spend so much more just keep burning fossil fuels that will still be dirtier than the alternatives?

 

[Nostra]

Thanks for the information.

One problem with this is expense. Why spend so much more just keep burning fossil fuels that will still be dirtier than the alternatives?

Because the alternatives can't provide enough power, vermin.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

Because the alternatives can't provide enough power, vermin.

Childish name calling aside, it would also take time to retrofit and build new plants. How do you know there won't be enough alternative power online to make this unnecessary and/or redundant?

BTW, do you agree we should get away from fossil fuels eventually, or do you think we should keep using them?

If it is the latter we really don't have a debate. If it is the former, then really we are just debating the timeline.

 

[Stryder50]

So Kanadians have been rotting their brains eating coal tomatoes. Explains alot.

Carbon is Carbon
But then, diamonds are different than a lump of coal are different than a tomato.
Main point I was wanting to make was that instead of venting the clean flue into the atmosphere, cycle it through a hothouse growing operation first.

 

[22lcidw]

Childish name calling aside, it would also take time to retrofit and build new plants. How do you know there won't be enough alternative power online to make this unnecessary and/or redundant?

BTW, do you agree we should get away from fossil fuels eventually, or do you think we should keep using them?

If it is the latter we really don't have a debate. If it is the former, then really we are just debating the timeline.

There is also the issue of the room that is needed for alternative energy plants.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

At what point can we conclude that Biden has is a puppet and the executive branch has been seized by leftist junta in league with the Ayatollah Obama?

 

[Stryder50]

Thanks for the information.

One problem with this is expense. Why spend so much more just keep burning fossil fuels that will still be dirtier than the alternatives?

Huh ????
There is expense with any plan/system for generating electrical energy, if that's what you are referring to.? Also would help to scale how much expense you are inferring.

Assuming this post was in reference to the FGD for coal fueled electrical plants, the USA EPA set standards for reductions of Sulfur Dioxide emissions back in the early 1980s with deadlines applying @ 20-30 beyond that. Since "wind" and "solar" were still "a dream in the eye" and totally not ready to build, existing coal fueled power plants (and new ones in the works) had to retro fit scrubbers (FGD systems). Added costs were passed on to the consumers/customers.* There were some cases where the plants were too old and on verge of inefficient to justify cost of adding scrubbers so they were deactivated.

* FYI: Anytime Guv'mint agencies set regulations and/or environmental standards on industries/businesses the cost$ of compliance get added to the goods/services they are providing and paid for by the consumer/customer. This is basic economics and common sense, but seems so often to be beyond the grasp of the Libturds whom want to tax businesses/factories/corporations, etc.. Unfortunately, too many Leftist, pseudo-liberals, "socialists", enviro-nazis never learned nor grasped basic economics so aren't aware that: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" ~ TANSTAAFL. !

Note there was a similar situation when the Guv'mint mandated motor vehicles be equip with catalytic convertors on heir exhaust systems. Another added cost that was passed on to the consumer/customer.

The so-called "alternatives" are also costly, and when factoring in the environment cost of the natural resources needed to make such, their limited usable lifespan not being enough to cover their amortized cost$, and the environment complications of disposal or "recycle" when they are worn out makes them as much if not more so expensive than what they are intended to replace. Also: the Sun doesn't always shine nor the wind always blow so these "alternatives" can be used always when there is a demand, nor adjusted in output to the degree of systems they have replaced. Also, their footprint of land used versus energy put out also makes them inefficient compared to the conventional systems they are to replace.

Bottom line is when full and honest accounting of total costs are computed, the so-called "renewables"/"alternatives" are more expensive for the KW they provide in their lifetimes and not reliable energy sources. They are "cute" as a supplement, when they can work, but only fools, idiots (science~math~economic ignorants), or crooks would think such are viable solution to fully replace other proven systems.

BTW, it's possible you didn't understand my post you quoted, or don't comprehend English very well, or are very versed in science, technology, economics, and common sense; or all the above. Then maybe you are just being contentious and pulling my leg.

 

[Nostra]

Childish name calling aside, it would also take time to retrofit and build new plants. How do you know there won't be enough alternative power online to make this unnecessary and/or redundant?

BTW, do you agree we should get away from fossil fuels eventually, or do you think we should keep using them?

If it is the latter we really don't have a debate. If it is the former, then really we are just debating the timeline.

It is a fact there isn’t enough “alternative fuels” to replace fossil fuels. Arguing otherwise is idiotic.

And no, I don’t agree we should get away from fossil fuels because I’m not a mindless drone MMGW Cultist moron.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

Huh ????
There is expense with any plan/system for generating electrical energy, if that's what you are referring to.? Also would help to scale how much expense you are inferring.

Assuming this post was in reference to the FGD for coal fueled electrical plants, the USA EPA set standards for reductions of Sulfur Dioxide emissions back in the early 1980s with deadlines applying @ 20-30 beyond that. Since "wind" and "solar" were still "a dream in the eye" and totally not ready to build, existing coal fueled power plants (and new ones in the works) had to retro fit scrubbers (FGD systems). Added costs were passed on to the consumers/customers.* There were some cases where the plants were too old and on verge of inefficient to justify cost of adding scrubbers so they were deactivated.

* FYI: Anytime Guv'mint agencies set regulations and/or environmental standards on industries/businesses the cost$ of compliance get added to the goods/services they are providing and paid for by the consumer/customer. This is basic economics and common sense, but seems so often to be beyond the grasp of the Libturds whom want to tax businesses/factories/corporations, etc.. Unfortunately, too many Leftist, pseudo-liberals, "socialists", enviro-nazis never learned nor grasped basic economics so aren't aware that: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" ~ TANSTAAFL. !

Note there was a similar situation when the Guv'mint mandated motor vehicles be equip with catalytic convertors on heir exhaust systems. Another added cost that was passed on to the consumer/customer.

The so-called "alternatives" are also costly, and when factoring in the environment cost of the natural resources needed to make such, their limited usable lifespan not being enough to cover their amortized cost$, and the environment complications of disposal or "recycle" when they are worn out makes them as much if not more so expensive than what they are intended to replace. Also: the Sun doesn't always shine nor the wind always blow so these "alternatives" can be used always when there is a demand, nor adjusted in output to the degree of systems they have replaced. Also, their footprint of land used versus energy put out also makes them inefficient compared to the conventional systems they are to replace.

Bottom line is when full and honest accounting of total costs are computed, the so-called "renewables"/"alternatives" are more expensive for the KW they provide in their lifetimes and not reliable energy sources. They are "cute" as a supplement, when they can work, but only fools, idiots (science~math~economic ignorants), or crooks would think such are viable solution to fully replace other proven systems.

BTW, it's possible you didn't understand my post you quoted, or don't comprehend English very well, or are very versed in science, technology, economics, and common sense; or all the above. Then maybe you are just being contentious and pulling my leg.

I think we need to back up a little here.

Do you agree we should eventually quit using fossil fuels?

If yes, then we are simply debating timelines. That could be a an interesting conversation. I agree we should not switch before we are ready nor at a cost that is prohibitive just to do it. That being said, we do need to spend some time, money and resources on developing these new technologies. I think we can find a lot of common ground here. Yes, I have a science background. My economics is limited to a few classes in college. Common sense is somewhat subjective.

If you think we should use fossil fuels forever or until they used up, then we are really too far apart for any meaningful debate.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

It is a fact there isn’t enough “alternative fuels” to replace fossil fuels. Arguing otherwise is idiotic.

And no, I don’t agree we should get away from fossil fuels because I’m not a mindless drone MMGW Cultist moron.

Then we are too far apart for any meaningful debate.

 

[westwall]

Then we are too far apart for any meaningful debate.

You have to first be honest before that can happen in any case. And so far I see little of that.

To your question, yes, it would be nice to have a true green energy production system.

None truly exists. That's a simple fact. Wind energy systems are horribly inefficient, massacre rare birds and bats, and create less energy over their lifespans than was used to create them.

Solar is excellent as an off grid energy system for single family, or small commercial enterprises, but are not scalable in any meaningful way.

Nuclear is the only true green energy system available, that can be used anywhere.

But the environmental nutjobs avoid that like the plague because their goals are about people control, not environmental protection.

 

[Stryder50]

I think we need to back up a little here.

Do you agree we should eventually quit using fossil fuels?

If yes, then we are simply debating timelines. That could be a an interesting conversation. I agree we should not switch before we are ready nor at a cost that is prohibitive just to do it. That being said, we do need to spend some time, money and resources on developing these new technologies. I think we can find a lot of common ground here. Yes, I have a science background. My economics is limited to a few classes in college. Common sense is somewhat subjective.

If you think we should use fossil fuels forever or until they used up, then we are really too far apart for any meaningful debate.

First, I abhor the use of the term "fossil fuel". It is not precise nor accurate in description or context. Carbon resources would be a better term to use, especially since the common inferred "fossil fuels" are petroleum and natural gas and both are also sources for things other than "fuel". Their value for products has become indispensable for 21st century industry and commerce and with no viable nor affordable alternates available, we will be using those carbon resources for a long time.

The "debate" is more than "timelines". It's about viable alternate carbon resources to replace the product uses of petroleum and NG and that will likely take new tech and methods. Right now, with barely enough food production to feed the world's population, turning food crop land to grow alternate 'fuel' looks too much like folly. This time of year I burn wood to heat my home, it's cheaper and more effective than using electric; wood is another form of carbon resource. We have not explored enough ways and options using carbon resources other than petro and NG for product manufacture to replace petro and/or NG so there should be no premature talk of compelling cuts in their usage until there alternates are better defined.

As for "we do need to spend some time, money and resources on developing these new technologies."; just make sure YOU are part of that "we". Another major issue I have with the greenie/anti-"fossil fuel" gang is that none of them are willing to put their own money and sweat into developing and perfecting the alternatives. It's always supposed to be someone else's dime, not theirs. But then I've also noticed very few of the enviro-nazis are involved in the wealth creation part of society, rather they are on the redistribution side with their parasitic hands out expecting others to support them and their half-baked schemes.

One major way you are dodging any real debate is by not presenting specific devices, technologies, of fuel/power sources for your "free lunch" dream future.

I'd remind your to recheck the thread topic here. It sounds like you are mush mouthing about the bush to defend Biden's idiotic "energy plans" which are a poor cloak for continuing the scheme to tear down America and reduce us to a third world nation.

BTW, I forgot to proof read that last paragraph of my post. It should be: " ... or are NOT very versed in science, technology, economics, and common sense; or all the above. ..." FWIW, common sense is rarely subjective, 'somewhat' or other wise.

Past my bedtime. Maybe later ...

 

[Smokin' OP]

Cult gonna cult.

No need to waste time on the brainwashed drones.

You got that right.

Donald Trump Bashes Solar Power and 'Windmills'​

Newsweek
https://www.newsweek.com › donald-trump-criticizes-...
Mar 21, 2019 — President Donald Trump has criticized renewable energy sources, claiming people would have to turn off their TV sets if there wasn't a ...

Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked for suggesting solar and ...​

The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk › Climate › News
Aug 15, 2022 — Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested that solar and wind energy don't work at night, prompting online mockery. TheRepublican was speaking in ...

 

[Muhammed]

Since almost all of our Electricity is generated by renewable energy we are going to be comfi.

Coal is renewable unless you are some LWNJ religious nutjob who thinks that their fascist/communist god says coal is no longer a naturally occurring substance.

LWNJs are morons.

 

[Libby von H]

The Usurper is on a mission to harm the US and its citizens, period. This cannot stand. Our destruction is inevitable if he's allowed another illegal term in office.

President Biden just pledged to shut down 60% of America’s electric power

The Biden administration’s proposals aren’t likely to change the planet’s temperature by even one-tenth of a degree, but they might just destroy the 21st-century American industrial economy a…

nypost.com

He is a fool -- and worse --- a lazy fool

"
Nuclear Comeback: Over 20 countries signed a joint declaration at the Dubai climate summit vowing to triple their nuclear power capacity by 2050, finally recognizing nuclear energy’s key role in reducing carbon emissions, especially when compared to the much less effective renewables.

But maybe Biden's choice for nuclear matters just didn't work out, Sam Brinton