President-elect Trump wants more coal. Does that make sense?

And there's just something "pussy" about electric cars!

Besides, only the rich folks can afford them. Originally Posted by LexusLover

How surprised would those "rich folks" be if they only knew it was coal powered plants delivering the electricity to charge their electric cars?

How surprised would those "rich folks" be if they only knew it was coal powered plants delivering the electricity to charge their electric cars? Originally Posted by gfejunkie

That depends on where one is "recharging" ....

Is that Three Mile Island?

Give fLair65 a thinking exercise, stand back, and watch the fun. He almost makes me miss WTF.

The economics for alternatives to fossil fuels (in general) just isn't there yet. And it is not because the oil industry is blocking something.

Is that Three Mile Island?

Give fLair65 a thinking exercise, stand back, and watch the fun. He almost makes me miss WTF.

The economics for alternatives to fossil fuels (in general) just isn't there yet. And it is not because the oil industry is blocking something. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The transition is necessary for the survival of the human race, not because of "global warming," but because the presence of retrievable fossil fuel resources for energy production is limited in relation to the life expectancy of the Earth and the level of current consumption. That last barrel of oil is going to be EXPENSIVE!

It's like cigarettes: Everyone knows they need to quit, but....!
And the one's who think they don't have to won't be around much longer.

IMO this country is crazy if it refocuses on consuming the domestic fossil fuel resources, as opposed to foreign resources, without a simultaneous obsessive program to transition from fossil fuel dependency to alternative resources, which requires "retooling" and "retrofitting" while at the same time redesigning for future manufacturing and production. It will also take a re-education of the U.S. population to modify their images and expectations of what is "cool" and "hot," not to mention the acceptance of some adjustments in lifestyle that will accommodate the alternative resources.

Example: I personally don't think it is "cool" to drive 80 and 85 down the toll road zipping in and out of traffic an unsafe distances even with turn signals. Particularly when I see them pulled over by the constable or rolled over after bouncing off the retaining wall when I pass by them in single file with everyone else who are not late to work ... or their hobbying appointment!!!!

Is that Three Mile Island?

Give fLair65 a thinking exercise, stand back, and watch the fun. He almost makes me miss WTF.

The economics for alternatives to fossil fuels (in general) just isn't there yet. And it is not because the oil industry is blocking something. Originally Posted by gnadfly

An electric car was produced by Detroit Edison 100 years ago, and even Mrs. Ford drove one. Thomas Edison himself owned one and loved electricity more than oil.

Even now, the mighty Tesla only carries the energy equivalent of about 2 gallons of gasoline. You can go much farther in a 10 year old Honda that costs about 2500 bucks, and you can turn on the heater while you are at it!! Plus after a few years, your battery range goes to shit, just like your laptop and it's shitty battery. Battery technology/energy storage is the Achilles heel.

Remember, that two thousand pound Tesla battery powers that rather nice car as far as 15 pounds (2 gallons) of gasoline plus the 50 pound gas tank. Look up the concept of energy density if you don't believe me.

I hate coal - either make it clean or kill it. (Unless Assup works in a coal mine - then shove all that dust down his faggotty throat). Natgas is oversupplied and will remain so for a long time.

Not advocating oil shale, but lets not allow ourselves to believe that electric cars do not pollute.

...lets not allow ourselves to believe that electric cars do not pollute. Originally Posted by love2fishfork

IMO "the issue" is not "pollution" it is "sustainable resources."

I posted a pic of the Hoover Dam ... the power generating ability of the Dam is being depleted by the reduction of the lake behind it .... which is the source of water for Las Vegas ... which is now and will FOREVER be under water-rationing guidelines to preserve the water for the city, but will not last forever. In otherwords some posting on here will see the decline of Las Vegas .... as the saying goes ... "dust to dust"!

As for the "strip mining" and "pollution," relatively small amounts of lithium are produced in the U.S. The majority of it (almost 3/4's) is from South America.

IMO "the issue" is not "pollution" it is "sustainable resources."

I posted a pic of the Hoover Dam ... the power generating ability of the Dam is being depleted by the reduction of the lake behind it .... which is the source of water for Las Vegas ... which is now and will FOREVER be under water-rationing guidelines to preserve the water for the city, but will not last forever. In otherwords some posting on here will see the decline of Las Vegas .... as the saying goes ... "dust to dust"!

As for the "strip mining" and "pollution," relatively small amounts of lithium are produced in the U.S. The majority of it (almost 3/4's) is from South America. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The only reason they let water out of the Hoover Dam is for the little fishes to swim downstream, and for downstream water rights. The electricity, while a wonderful resource, is a free bonus when available.

The transition is necessary for the survival of the human race, not because of "global warming," but because the presence of retrievable fossil fuel resources for energy production is limited in relation to the life expectancy of the Earth and the level of current consumption. That last barrel of oil is going to be EXPENSIVE!

It's like cigarettes: Everyone knows they need to quit, but....!
And the one's who think they don't have to won't be around much longer.

IMO this country is crazy if it refocuses on consuming the domestic fossil fuel resources, as opposed to foreign resources, without a simultaneous obsessive program to transition from fossil fuel dependency to alternative resources, which requires "retooling" and "retrofitting" while at the same time redesigning for future manufacturing and production. It will also take a re-education of the U.S. population to modify their images and expectations of what is "cool" and "hot," not to mention the acceptance of some adjustments in lifestyle that will accommodate the alternative resources.

Example: I personally don't think it is "cool" to drive 80 and 85 down the toll road zipping in and out of traffic an unsafe distances even with turn signals. Particularly when I see them pulled over by the constable or rolled over after bouncing off the retaining wall when I pass by them in single file with everyone else who are not late to work ... or their hobbying appointment!!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

you sound like you agree with Barack Obama.

you sound like you agree with Barack Obama Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

No. Actually the list of things with which we agree is short.

1. Shoot pirates on sight.
2. He is leaving just before the end of this month.

That pretty much brackets his eight years!

Have you run out of coloring books or Crayolas yet?

The government should not be involved in deciding who succeeds and who does not.
When gas is a better alternative to coal then coal will lose the ability to compete.
The government should not artificially give an advantage to one means over another or subsidize those that cannot compete heads up.

In case some of you have not noticed; we are about 20 trillion in debt. Giving away money is not in our best interest.

The government should not be involved in deciding who succeeds and who does not. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

As long as when it's a choice of the USA and some other country, then I want our government involved to make sure it's the USA.

No. Actually the list of things with which we agree is short.

1. Shoot pirates on sight.
2. He is leaving just before the end of this month.

That pretty much brackets his eight years!

Have you run out of coloring books or Crayolas yet? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your position on fossil fuels is Obama's.......hahaha you're a hyprocrite but I already knew that

Trump may try to bring back coal but he will never bring back jobs in the coal industry. Employment peaked in 1920. Due to automation it has steadly fallen.

Trump may try to bring back coal but he will never bring back jobs in the coal industry. Employment peaked in 1920. Due to automation it has steadly fallen. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Tell that to the people in West Virginia who recently lost their jobs Big Schmooie.

Mining jobs peaked in 1981 Big Schmooie, not 1920.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://...E9qFgzeqVoj1kg

You dumb fuck