If we want more renewables, we're going to need a lot more mining first

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
Do you think the lunatic left will adopt "dig baby dig"? Dig with those big diesel power engines. Dig in the Alaska wilderness. Dig in the ocean. And once you dig it up. "Refine baby, refine".... using lots of energy........ With a shit ton of byproduct.... It's all so very green..............

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...es-were-going-to-need-a-lot-more-mining-first

From Day One of his presidency, Joe Biden has been waging war on domestic oil, natural gas, and coal. Now he is making it more difficult for U.S. companies to mine key minerals, making his own climate goals become even more unrealistic than they are already.

Low-emission technologies require huge volumes of special minerals. The supply of these is much lower than the probable demand. Worse still, existing supplies are largely controlled by our enemies.

The fact is, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries use certain key minerals in much bigger quantities than the technologies they are meant to replace. A typical onshore wind turbine contains five tons of copper. It also uses large amounts of manganese, chromium, zinc, and rare earths. Solar panels also require a range of minerals. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants need a lot less of these minerals to generate the same amount of electricity.

An electric vehicle uses more than twice the amount of copper and manganese than a conventional car. Unlike a conventional car, an electric vehicle also needs lithium, nickel, cobalt, neodymium, and graphite.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
21,388
30,584
1
And the the cranes and bulldozers and yukes needed to do the mining surely aren't going to be electric vehicles themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LioninHouston

PAstr

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2010
305
179
1
A big one that wasn’t mentioned is silver . Global silver demand this year is forecast to be 1.1 billion ounces. The total amount mined each year is around 800 million ounces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
A big one that wasn’t mentioned is silver . Global silver demand this year is forecast to be 1.1 billion ounces. The total amount mined each year is around 800 million ounces.

Sounds like investing in a silver ETF might be a good idea.
 

PAstr

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2010
305
179
1
The problem with the big ETF (SLV) is that it is actively shorted by the major banks. The artificial price suppression is pretty alarming. PSLV, on the other hand, actually allocates your silver purchases and cannot be “loaned” for the purposes of shorting. At some point, producers like Tesla, GM, Samsung, Apple or solar panel manufacturers are going to demand delivery of silver that the spot market simply cannot supply. A similar story happened last month with nickel and the short squeeze resulted in he price doubling overnight until the LME halted trading and refused to honor contracts. Odd times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BW Lion and m.knox

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
16,053
5,507
1
Do you think the lunatic left will adopt "dig baby dig"? Dig with those big diesel power engines. Dig in the Alaska wilderness. Dig in the ocean. And once you dig it up. "Refine baby, refine".... using lots of energy........ With a shit ton of byproduct.... It's all so very green..............

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...es-were-going-to-need-a-lot-more-mining-first

From Day One of his presidency, Joe Biden has been waging war on domestic oil, natural gas, and coal. Now he is making it more difficult for U.S. companies to mine key minerals, making his own climate goals become even more unrealistic than they are already.

Low-emission technologies require huge volumes of special minerals. The supply of these is much lower than the probable demand. Worse still, existing supplies are largely controlled by our enemies.

The fact is, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries use certain key minerals in much bigger quantities than the technologies they are meant to replace. A typical onshore wind turbine contains five tons of copper. It also uses large amounts of manganese, chromium, zinc, and rare earths. Solar panels also require a range of minerals. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants need a lot less of these minerals to generate the same amount of electricity.


An electric vehicle uses more than twice the amount of copper and manganese than a conventional car. Unlike a conventional car, an electric vehicle also needs lithium, nickel, cobalt, neodymium, and graphite.
They don't care about the earth, they care about the "green energy" money that enters the DNC and their congressional pockets via kickbacks from China.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,694
5,798
1
Do you think the lunatic left will adopt "dig baby dig"? Dig with those big diesel power engines. Dig in the Alaska wilderness. Dig in the ocean. And once you dig it up. "Refine baby, refine".... using lots of energy........ With a shit ton of byproduct.... It's all so very green..............

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...es-were-going-to-need-a-lot-more-mining-first

From Day One of his presidency, Joe Biden has been waging war on domestic oil, natural gas, and coal. Now he is making it more difficult for U.S. companies to mine key minerals, making his own climate goals become even more unrealistic than they are already.

Low-emission technologies require huge volumes of special minerals. The supply of these is much lower than the probable demand. Worse still, existing supplies are largely controlled by our enemies.

The fact is, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries use certain key minerals in much bigger quantities than the technologies they are meant to replace. A typical onshore wind turbine contains five tons of copper. It also uses large amounts of manganese, chromium, zinc, and rare earths. Solar panels also require a range of minerals. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants need a lot less of these minerals to generate the same amount of electricity.


An electric vehicle uses more than twice the amount of copper and manganese than a conventional car. Unlike a conventional car, an electric vehicle also needs lithium, nickel, cobalt, neodymium, and graphite.
Come on, man.....everyone knows that niclel, lithium, silver and cobalt just sits on the top of the earth. Just get a bucket, go for an afternoon walk and pick up as much as you want
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Do you think the lunatic left will adopt "dig baby dig"? Dig with those big diesel power engines. Dig in the Alaska wilderness. Dig in the ocean. And once you dig it up. "Refine baby, refine".... using lots of energy........ With a shit ton of byproduct.... It's all so very green..............

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...es-were-going-to-need-a-lot-more-mining-first

From Day One of his presidency, Joe Biden has been waging war on domestic oil, natural gas, and coal. Now he is making it more difficult for U.S. companies to mine key minerals, making his own climate goals become even more unrealistic than they are already.

Low-emission technologies require huge volumes of special minerals. The supply of these is much lower than the probable demand. Worse still, existing supplies are largely controlled by our enemies.

The fact is, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries use certain key minerals in much bigger quantities than the technologies they are meant to replace. A typical onshore wind turbine contains five tons of copper. It also uses large amounts of manganese, chromium, zinc, and rare earths. Solar panels also require a range of minerals. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants need a lot less of these minerals to generate the same amount of electricity.


An electric vehicle uses more than twice the amount of copper and manganese than a conventional car. Unlike a conventional car, an electric vehicle also needs lithium, nickel, cobalt, neodymium, and graphite.
This is complete and utter BS.
There is no way the volume of rare earth minerals and lithium needed for wind turbines would ever exceed the volume of coal needed to power coal power plants.
And that coal has to be mined continuously while the plants are operating
Plus there is the steel needed for railroads and the trucks needed to transport the coal and the increased road repair costs from the coal trucks, the fuel needed for transport and all the mining equipment needed to mine the coal.
To claim that renewables will require more mining is absurd.
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,934
2,732
1
This is complete and utter BS.
There is no way the volume of rare earth minerals and lithium needed for wind turbines would ever exceed the volume of coal needed to power coal power plants.
And that coal has to be mined continuously while the plants are operating
Plus there is the steel needed for railroads and the trucks needed to transport the coal and the increased road repair costs from the coal trucks, the fuel needed for transport and all the mining equipment needed to mine the coal.
To claim that renewables will require more mining is absurd.
And thats the point, there really isn't any clean energy. You think a wind turbine lasts forever? A number of years ago there was a study that proved a Prius was more detrimental to the environment then a Hummer. Clean energy is the new scam!
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
And thats the point, there really isn't any clean energy. You think a wind turbine lasts forever? A number of years ago there was a study that proved a Prius was more detrimental to the environment then a Hummer. Clean energy is the new scam!
No the point is some sources are cleaner than others. Coal has to be continuously extracted from the ground and transported to a power plant, and burned to spin generators.
Wind turbines have to be built like anything else but once they are built they produce little pollution when compared to coal and even oil.
And recent studies have shown that electric cars do create less pollution than ICE cars.
 

GSPMax

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
2,255
3,272
1
No the point is some sources are cleaner than others. Coal has to be continuously extracted from the ground and transported to a power plant, and burned to spin generators.
Wind turbines have to be built like anything else but once they are built they produce little pollution when compared to coal and even oil.
And recent studies have shown that electric cars do create less pollution than ICE cars.
You do realize that coal fired power plants can be converted to natural gas as PSU did.

You do realize that don't you. Well don't you?
 

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,515
39,892
1
This is complete and utter BS.
There is no way the volume of rare earth minerals and lithium needed for wind turbines would ever exceed the volume of coal needed to power coal power plants.
And that coal has to be mined continuously while the plants are operating
Plus there is the steel needed for railroads and the trucks needed to transport the coal and the increased road repair costs from the coal trucks, the fuel needed for transport and all the mining equipment needed to mine the coal.
To claim that renewables will require more mining is absurd.
Do you have any idea where we will get these rare earth minerals, how they are extracted, and who profits the most?
 
Last edited:

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Do you have any idea where we will get these rare earth minerals, how they are extracted, and who profits the most?
Most come from China but we have some domestically too.
And these rare earth elements are critical in pretty much of our electronics.
And using renewables like wind and solar are far preferable to using coal, which is expensive and dirty.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
This is complete and utter BS.
There is no way the volume of rare earth minerals and lithium needed for wind turbines would ever exceed the volume of coal needed to power coal power plants.
And that coal has to be mined continuously while the plants are operating
Plus there is the steel needed for railroads and the trucks needed to transport the coal and the increased road repair costs from the coal trucks, the fuel needed for transport and all the mining equipment needed to mine the coal.
To claim that renewables will require more mining is absurd.

Jeff, what did you study at Penn State?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
They don't care about the earth, they care about the "green energy" money that enters the DNC and their congressional pockets via kickbacks from China.

They do care about the Earth. They just don't understand that everything in modern society comes from somewhere and consumes resources. The best "green" plan is for another more deadly pandemic.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
Come on, man.....everyone knows that niclel, lithium, silver and cobalt just sits on the top of the earth. Just get a bucket, go for an afternoon walk and pick up as much as you want

"Everyone" most certainly includes @JeffClear
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
"Everyone" most certainly includes @JeffClear
You are the idiot who thinks we will mine more rare earth elements than we do coal due to renewables.
There is a reason why they are called "rare" and we won't need huge trains filled with rare earth elements like we currently do with coal because we have more wind turbines.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
You are the idiot who thinks we will mine more rare earth elements than we do coal due to renewables.
There is a reason why they are called "rare" and we won't need huge trains filled with rare earth elements like we currently do with coal because we have more wind turbines.

If coal is dead Jeff, we will mine infinitely more rare earth minerals than coal...... That's just math....

Secondly, I have a question for you. Does descriptor "rare earth" tip you off at all?

The article cited facts. Numbers. For example..........

An analysis out of the United Kingdom indicates the scale of the electric vehicle challenge alone. To replace all of the U.K.’s nearly 32 million cars with electric vehicles would use roughly twice the cobalt, nearly all the neodymium, 75% of the lithium, and 50% of the copper produced in the entire world in 2018. Converting the entire U.S. fleet of 260 million cars would take about eight times more than that.

The World Bank estimates that, over the next 25 years, the world would need to mine the same amount of copper mined over the past 5,000 years, largely because of the push for renewable energy and electric vehicles. The International Energy Agency sees demand in 2040 for lithium soaring 4,200%, graphite 2,500%, nickel 1,900%, and rare earths 700%.

So, where will we get all of these minerals? Right now, we’re dependent on geopolitical rivals. China dominates the lithium supply chain and controls supplies of copper, cobalt, and rare earths around the world. Russia plays an outsize role in the nickel market. It’s also been a significant supplier of uranium to the United States for decades.

Currently, the U.S. is 100% dependent on imports of 17 key minerals. We are over 50% dependent on imports of another 29 minerals.


Have you any facts? Or are you just going to do the @JeffClear thing that you've become known for?
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,934
2,732
1
No the point is some sources are cleaner than others. Coal has to be continuously extracted from the ground and transported to a power plant, and burned to spin generators.
Wind turbines have to be built like anything else but once they are built they produce little pollution when compared to coal and even oil.
And recent studies have shown that electric cars do create less pollution than ICE cars.
Not really, if you think about it energy is cleaner now then its ever been. In the 70s and 80s there were issues air was dirty and we were head to an ice age. Now air pollution is non existant. The ozone hole is closed and we are all gonna die. Its like electric cars, from a clean energy pov they are a scam. Like it or not the cleanest energy is nuclear but its also the most dangerous. All the rest will never produce what we need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,934
2,732
1
If coal is dead Jeff, we will mine infinitely more rare earth minerals than coal...... That's just math....

Secondly, I have a question for you. Does descriptor "rare earth" tip you off at all?

The article cited facts. Numbers. For example..........

An analysis out of the United Kingdom indicates the scale of the electric vehicle challenge alone. To replace all of the U.K.’s nearly 32 million cars with electric vehicles would use roughly twice the cobalt, nearly all the neodymium, 75% of the lithium, and 50% of the copper produced in the entire world in 2018. Converting the entire U.S. fleet of 260 million cars would take about eight times more than that.

The World Bank estimates that, over the next 25 years, the world would need to mine the same amount of copper mined over the past 5,000 years, largely because of the push for renewable energy and electric vehicles. The International Energy Agency sees demand in 2040 for lithium soaring 4,200%, graphite 2,500%, nickel 1,900%, and rare earths 700%.

So, where will we get all of these minerals? Right now, we’re dependent on geopolitical rivals. China dominates the lithium supply chain and controls supplies of copper, cobalt, and rare earths around the world. Russia plays an outsize role in the nickel market. It’s also been a significant supplier of uranium to the United States for decades.

Currently, the U.S. is 100% dependent on imports of 17 key minerals. We are over 50% dependent on imports of another 29 minerals.


Have you any facts? Or are you just going to do the @JeffClear thing that you've become known for?
Jeff is CLEARLY a moron
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,195
1,274
1
Do you think the lunatic left will adopt "dig baby dig"? Dig with those big diesel power engines. Dig in the Alaska wilderness. Dig in the ocean. And once you dig it up. "Refine baby, refine".... using lots of energy........ With a shit ton of byproduct.... It's all so very green..............

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...es-were-going-to-need-a-lot-more-mining-first

From Day One of his presidency, Joe Biden has been waging war on domestic oil, natural gas, and coal. Now he is making it more difficult for U.S. companies to mine key minerals, making his own climate goals become even more unrealistic than they are already.

Low-emission technologies require huge volumes of special minerals. The supply of these is much lower than the probable demand. Worse still, existing supplies are largely controlled by our enemies.

The fact is, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries use certain key minerals in much bigger quantities than the technologies they are meant to replace. A typical onshore wind turbine contains five tons of copper. It also uses large amounts of manganese, chromium, zinc, and rare earths. Solar panels also require a range of minerals. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants need a lot less of these minerals to generate the same amount of electricity.


An electric vehicle uses more than twice the amount of copper and manganese than a conventional car. Unlike a conventional car, an electric vehicle also needs lithium, nickel, cobalt, neodymium, and graphite.
This is the significant problem with green technology that many on the left either don't want to acknowledge or don't understand is the tremendous increase in mining and, more importantly, mineral processing and refining that will be required to make a "green" transition.

We have traded our hard won energy independence achieved under Trump and the geopolitical advantages that gives us for a new energy dependency on China and Russia and third world dictators.

In 1980 the US produced more rare earth minerals than the rest of the world combined, today almost none. China now produces 10 times as much rare earth metals as the US produced in 1980. This is because over the last 40 years the US mining has been hit by excessive regulation and low prices due to unfair competition from China.

There is no way we could just “start mining rare earths tomorrow” or other metals such as cobalt, lithium, copper and other metals and minerals especially at the quantities needed for “green” energy when our permitting process is so long and convoluted. Other mining countries, that have just as stringent environmental regulations as ours, such as Australia, Canada and Sweden understand the value of their minerals and can get an exploration permit in weeks and a mining permit in years, it can take us up to a decade or more to permit a new mine in the US. There are very few investors that are willing to take that kind of risk.

Even if we started mining immediately, we would probably have to send it to China to refine it. With renewables, almost all of our supply chain from mining, mineral processing, manufacturing and even some construction expertise is foreign, much of it from countries like China and Russia that are not our friends. Although we can very likely get all of the metals and rare earths we need right here in this country, it would a huge increase in mining and mineral processing for us to be self sufficient.

Even if the country was all in on sourcing the minerals in the US it would likely take 10 to 20 years or more to develop the resources needed. The thing that concerns me is that I very much doubt that the environmental lobby would allow that to happen.


 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
This is the significant problem with green technology that many on the left either don't want to acknowledge or don't understand is the tremendous increase in mining and, more importantly, mineral processing and refining that will be required to make a "green" transition.

We have traded our hard won energy independence achieved under Trump and the geopolitical advantages that gives us for a new energy dependency on China and Russia and third world dictators.

In 1980 the US produced more rare earth minerals than the rest of the world combined, today almost none. China now produces 10 times as much rare earth metals as the US produced in 1980. This is because over the last 40 years the US mining has been hit by excessive regulation and low prices due to unfair competition from China.

There is no way we could just “start mining rare earths tomorrow” or other metals such as cobalt, lithium, copper and other metals and minerals especially at the quantities needed for “green” energy when our permitting process is so long and convoluted. Other mining countries, that have just as stringent environmental regulations as ours, such as Australia, Canada and Sweden understand the value of their minerals and can get an exploration permit in weeks and a mining permit in years, it can take us up to a decade or more to permit a new mine in the US. There are very few investors that are willing to take that kind of risk.

Even if we started mining immediately, we would probably have to send it to China to refine it. With renewables, almost all of our supply chain from mining, mineral processing, manufacturing and even some construction expertise is foreign, much of it from countries like China and Russia that are not our friends. Although we can very likely get all of the metals and rare earths we need right here in this country, it would a huge increase in mining and mineral processing for us to be self sufficient.

Even if the country was all in on sourcing the minerals in the US it would likely take 10 to 20 years or more to develop the resources needed. The thing that concerns me is that I very much doubt that the environmental lobby would allow that to happen.



Great articles. Thanks for the post. All of your comments were spot on which begs the question of what is the left thinking? The naivety is stunning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,515
39,892
1
Most come from China but we have some domestically too.
And these rare earth elements are critical in pretty much of our electronics.
And using renewables like wind and solar are far preferable to using coal, which is expensive and dirty.
China sits on the earth’s largest known deposits AND it dominates the world in terms of extraction. Why in the hell are you leftists so eager to hand China a massive advantage? You are so eager to kill an industry dominated by the U.S. and hand China a massive gift. Is it really all because you think you are “saving” the planet, or are you just that eager for China to take over as the world’s most powerful country? Which is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan and m.knox

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
China sits on the earth’s largest known deposits AND it dominates the world in terms of extraction. Why in the hell are you leftists so eager to hand China a massive advantage? You are so eager to kill an industry dominated by the U.S. and hand China a massive gift. Is it really all because you think you are “saving” the planet, or are you just that eager for China to take over as the world’s most powerful country? Which is it?

Saving PLANET EARTH is the noblest of causes. Imagine the joy of Pete Buttigieg proclaiming he helped SAVE THE EARTH.......

Nothing but a gay megalomaniac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LioninHouston

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
China sits on the earth’s largest known deposits AND it dominates the world in terms of extraction. Why in the hell are you leftists so eager to hand China a massive advantage? You are so eager to kill an industry dominated by the U.S. and hand China a massive gift. Is it really all because you think you are “saving” the planet, or are you just that eager for China to take over as the world’s most powerful country? Which is it?
Don't be so dramatic.
Relatively speaking imports of rare earth elements are small, roughly $160 million a year.
We have rare earth elements here too, if we need them.
And I do like clean air and water and I really enjoy life and want to live as long as I can.
Coal plants and ICE vehicles produce a lot of harmful air pollution.
I feel bad for people who live near coal power plants busy roads and highways and have to breath in exhaust fumes all day long.
Burning coal also puts mercury in the local water supply so not only do people get to breath in toxic gas they get the neurotoxin mercury in their water.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,515
39,892
1
Don't be so dramatic.
Relatively speaking imports of rare earth elements are small, roughly $160 million a year.
We have rare earth elements here too, if we need them.
And I do like clean air and water and I really enjoy life and want to live as long as I can.
Coal plants and ICE vehicles produce a lot of harmful air pollution.
I feel bad for people who live near coal power plants busy roads and highways and have to breath in exhaust fumes all day long.
Burning coal also puts mercury in the local water supply so not only do people get to breath in toxic gas they get the neurotoxin mercury in their water.
That was a pathetic response. Coal? I didn’t even mention coal. You know damn well you are avoiding my questions.
 

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,515
39,892
1
You didn’t mention anything other than to say “industry.” And which question did I avoid?
The left is trying to kill the oil and gas industry, one that we lead the world in, and hand the power to China, who dominates in rare earth mineral production and sits on the world’s largest reserves. They lead in the production of batteries, too. Why are you so eager to shift power to China?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bison13 and m.knox

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
105,120
58,693
1
The left is trying to kill the oil and gas industry, one that we lead the world in, and hand the power to China, who dominates in rare earth mineral production and sit on the world’s largest reserves. They lead in the production of batteries, too. Why are you so eager to shift power to China?

Jeff is doing the @JeffClear thing..................
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,744
1
China sits on the earth’s largest known deposits AND it dominates the world in terms of extraction. Why in the hell are you leftists so eager to hand China a massive advantage? You are so eager to kill an industry dominated by the U.S. and hand China a massive gift. Is it really all because you think you are “saving” the planet, or are you just that eager for China to take over as the world’s most powerful country? Which is it?

Hey, it the pollution and raping of Mother Earth happens in China, liberal think that is ok.
 

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,744
1
Don't be so dramatic.
Relatively speaking imports of rare earth elements are small, roughly $160 million a year.
We have rare earth elements here too, if we need them.
And I do like clean air and water and I really enjoy life and want to live as long as I can.
Coal plants and ICE vehicles produce a lot of harmful air pollution.
I feel bad for people who live near coal power plants busy roads and highways and have to breath in exhaust fumes all day long.
Burning coal also puts mercury in the local water supply so not only do people get to breath in toxic gas they get the neurotoxin mercury in their water.

Kind of funny you have no idea how coal powerplants disperse their stack emissions. For decades they have build plant with very tall stacks to disperse and carry away their emission so they don't severely impact local communities. As a result, the pollution haze you get on the east coast Smokey Mountains is from large mid-west coal fired powerplants. Restrictions on fish consumption due to mercury in Maine where very few if any coal powerplant exist is due to the mid-west coal fired powerplant. Same thing happens in CA where the wind is primary off the ocean, that pollution is from coal fired powerplants in China and south east Asia.

Keep on babbling about thing you know nothing about. Jeff, you are doing a great job showing how clueless you are
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
The left is trying to kill the oil and gas industry, one that we lead the world in, and hand the power to China, who dominates in rare earth mineral production and sits on the world’s largest reserves. They lead in the production of batteries, too. Why are you so eager to shift power to China?
I want to see the use of oil and coal reduced.
And by reducing oil, we would gravely hurt tyrants in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran and improve our air and water.
Personally I really enjoy being alive and want to be around as long as I can and clean air and water will help.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,515
39,892
1
I want to see the use of oil and coal reduced.
And by reducing oil, we would gravely hurt tyrants in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran and improve our air and water.
Personally I really enjoy being alive and want to be around as long as I can and clean air and water will help.
You want to shift power to China, and increase strip mining, at the expense of American power. This is a huge mistake. The US and the automobile industry have made massive strides in terms of reducing emissions and producing oil and gas in a more environmentally friendly manner. This forced adoption of EVs and push to kill oil and gas is going to hurt everyone in America. It already is. Gas prices are hurting everyone and most people can’t afford EVs. The poor and lower middle class is getting clobbered. Congratulations. I hope you enjoy your air today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

Latest posts