Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

No, I don't think your are drunk, just a frustrated idiot.

 

 

On that note, I'm out

 

Run away. It's about the only thing you've proven to be competent at in this forum.

 

As an absurdist and a genius, I reject this reasoning. I can make sense in a nonsensical thread. I am that good.

 

Maybe you're drunk on bitters?

 

:lol: :lol:

Posted

 

Hot air generated by the G7.

 

Judging by the average age of those in attendance, I'd still call that fossil fuel.

Posted

Are there any proposals for what will replace fossil fuels?

Solar PV and concentrated, wind, geothermal, wave, hydro, nuclear, bio-fuels, - better efficiency ( LED lighting, geothermal exchange heating and cooling, better insulation, use of passive solar, vehicle light-weighting, electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, more efficient- refrigeration, screens, chips, electric motors, pumps, fluid movement, electrical transmission lines, etc) - energy storage ( batteries, super- capacitors, heat, chemical, pressure, gravity)

Posted (edited)

Solar PV and concentrated, wind, geothermal, wave, hydro, nuclear, bio-fuels, - better efficiency ( LED lighting, geothermal exchange heating and cooling, better insulation, use of passive solar, vehicle light-weighting, electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, more efficient- refrigeration, screens, chips, electric motors, pumps, fluid movement, electrical transmission lines, etc) - energy storage ( batteries, super- capacitors, heat, chemical, pressure, gravity)

That's the one I was looking for. Not that the others don't have their place, but if they're serious about making a significant reduction in global fossil fuel consumption that's really the only realistic option I see. Interestingly, most "green" types are opposed to that too.

Edited by Rob's House
Posted

That's the one I was looking for. Not that the others don't have their place, but if they're serious about making a significant reduction in global fossil fuel consumption that's really the only realistic option I see. Interestingly, most "green" types are opposed to that too.

The "green" types are fueled by hope and change and not much else. We should be gradually but steadily switching over to cleaner fuels than coal and refined oil. Natural gas seems like a good option as we also develop alternate clean energy sources. Since natural gas is not a fossil fuel (per Nancy Pelosi) we could send her to the next G7 meeting to inform the members of that fact. Just doing our share.

Posted (edited)

Yes. Iran and North Korea (the Best Korea) will likely nuke us all back to the stone age long before then.

 

That's gonna take a lot of nukes. We dropped 2 on Japan and they were still nowhere near the Stone Age. And America is probably 50 - 100 times bigger. (Guessing) Edited by reddogblitz
Posted

As long as they drop them on red states we'll be ok. Well, wait...many of them are already in the stone age. Still.

 

Yep, good old stone-age Texas, #1 economy and fastest growing state in the nation.

 

Are there any lefties in the US that aren't bitter and angry all the time?

Posted

As long as they drop them on red states we'll be ok. Well, wait...many of them are already in the stone age. Still.

 

Why do you even bother dropping by?

×
×
  • Create New...