We did it

Reminder that the coal industry wasn't destroyed by cheap gas, it was destroyed by Obama's policies favoring green energy......

is this her?

Attached: 1551723779255.jpg (488x500, 69K)

Meanwhile prices for gas and gasoline still rise in Yuropoor

The coal industry got destroyed by it's obsoleteness and the fact that pulling coal out of the earth is much more expensive than:
>Oil
>Gas
>Solar
>Geothermal
>Water
>Wind

is this because of subsidies? I bet it is.

Bree Ann Johanson

Abiotic gas has like 0 extraction cost

Attached: 1523441184583.jpg (1184x1246, 223K)

*Johansen

jesus

Attached: 1554325969128.png (612x442, 395K)

Retard

All neets should have pipes attached to their chairs linked to the to the gas refinery.
Farts are free.
Probleme green energy?

los creaturas del diablo...

Thank you for the chuckle

And thats a bad thing?

link, you fucking faggot

Why do normies publicly post their place of employment anyway

I assume it means "lost creatures of/from hell"

Good fucking riddance desu

Because people that regularly post on social media are retarded narcissistss?

archive.is/XdL4r

wrong

MUTTED

You can always burn the excess gas, just like the farmers dumping the milk when the price isn't right.

No, user, you need government permission before you can pointlessly burn anything, including leaves in your backyard.

fair enough

the creatures of the devil

Lately, however, there’s a problem. Wholesalers are buying oil, but they’re skipping on natural gas — a natural byproduct of the oil drilling process. Overproduction of oil, coupled with an existing pipeline down for maintenance, has left oil producers with more gas than they know what to do with. The oversupply has pushed prices for that natural gas into the negative, so sellers at the hub are resorting to paying customers with spare pipeline capacity to take the stuff off their hands.

Its been like that since forever. That is what that burning tower is in the background. Even bio-methane digester power plants have burn off towers since they can never really use up all the methane they create.

Top KEK

Attached: 1553085287816.jpg (900x658, 111K)

Americans, can't you see the greed is killing yourselves? Your children won't be able to live in warm homes, because it was "cHEaPeR" to burn the excess gas off instead of keeping it.

That's objectively pretty dumb of our species, man.

Attached: 1542030808668.jpg (1024x577, 188K)

My gas bill has been the highest it has ever been. Fuck Centerpoint; they should pay me for using their gas.

no it's broken spanish for "the creatures of the devil"

those screenshots were probably taken the same day. that being said, I've used the same profile pic for at least 4 years, it's not even a good one

america is run by the super wealthy. the average person can't do shit

fug.

>they should pay me for using their gas.
not with trump as pres

Unless each average sneaks up to super wealthy persons house, camps in the bushes with hunting rifles waiting for them to exit the house and then.. oops. Said too much about the operation.

Why do right-wing people love fossil fuels so much? The sooner we move away from them, the sooner arabs will go bankrupt.

>Why do right-wing people love fossil fuels so much?
because we love America USA USA USA USA

Attached: 1531662764977.jpg (712x740, 118K)

>coal faggots have to take responsibility for the costs associated with coal use, including human health, SOx emissions, potash disposal
>this is a bad thing

Ok faggot.

the poster was looking through the history to find that

>laugthing

imagine being this retarded

Poor, sweet little child.
The USA buys oil from other countries while hoarding its own massive reserves.
Right wingers like fossil fuels because we don't like spending a fortune on electricity and fuel prices like retarded liberals in California have to.

Besides their spelling error with "los" instead of "las", ¿how is it broken Español? It is not semantically correct?

>Why do right-wing people love fossil fuels so much?
for the same reason liberals hate guns
other side like thing so thing bad

>Why do right-wing people love fossil fuels so much
Anyone who thinks we can simply stop using fossil fuels probably doesn't have a worthwhile opinion on climate change in the first place. This has nothing to do with right or left wing.
Fossil fuels have a properties that are not replicated by anything else, including batteries. Good luck trying to charge and run a vehicle in the deep antarctic on batteries. Fossil fuels will be used for as long as they can be produced.
Not to mention the fact fossil fuels are just one portion of the greenhouse gasses being produced. Methane is just as much, or possibly more of a problem than fossil fuels are, but where's the talk about creating artificial meat to help climate change? We could stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, but if we still factory farm animals climate change will still get worse.

Attached: xannies.jpg (720x721, 38K)

Unlike a lot of other shit, coal actually is bad
the bullshit about CO2 isn't

Imagine being so retarded you post this.

The absolute fucking state of americucks.

it's just the "los" intentional misspelling.

This image is a complete clusterfuck

Dios Mio…

>Good luck trying to charge and run a vehicle in the deep antarctic on batteries
>hurr durr this one scenario that makes literally how many thousand cars vs literally a billion others means it's totally pointless durrr
And you should take your own advice and fucking shut up about climate change after showing to the world that you have literally no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about.

Are you going to build locomotives with batteries? How about cargo ships? Planes?
Fossil fuels are far more energy dense than anything batteries could ever hope to achieve.

I use the same profile pic for over 10 years here on Jow Forums and it's the only pic I ever used since I came on 2017

> why are you, in your opinion, qualified for a job at Walmart?
> I fuck niggers
> ur hird
> no u

>Fossil fuels are far more energy dense than anything batteries could ever hope to achieve
>Are you going to build locomotives with batteries
Holy fucking shit just stop already. I can't be asked dealing with either bait this shitty or someone THAT fucking retarded.

Howdy

Train companies are just going to go with a fundamentally less efficient means of moving their train and cargo forward. They'll do this because green energy, yeah!

but how to deal with the neets like this one?
very long pipe????

Attached: download (43).jpg (1024x576, 89K)

THANKS OBAMA YA COMMIE MUSLIM BASTRD

>swastika eyes
no don't do it her fart gas is a trap

Not simple with gas.

Attached: 1530345186526.gif (200x200, 2.44M)

No it was destroyed by the rapid overdemand caused by a rise in number of coal burners.

>another Jow Forums thread on the wrong board

Attached: pol thread.png (1262x846, 692K)

the profile picture is a metaphor for how unchanging her retarded opinions are. Sorry, I just finished watching XRA

who /thorium/ here?

Yep

Attached: tubes!.png (500x500, 105K)

>We did it
reddit!

bump

cheaper power only makes EV more appealing
unless you're willing to start using LNG cars that would be a pain in the ass from an infrastructure point of view

Attached: Car-Costs.jpg (1190x656, 159K)

*The state of Trumpcucks.
They'll lick his balls while he fucks their wives.

Teslas are already better than other cars for 90% of drivers. Probably about 75% of semis as well. Oh and the funny thing about locomotives is they already use electric motors, the diesel engine is actually just a generator so electric locomotives actually aren't hard at all to build. Pretty irrelevant though as their carbon footprint is very low compared to millions of private autos.

You aren't completely wrong about methane it is a big problem, but compared to CO2 it exits the atmosphere very quickly so over time it has a weaker greenhouse effect, CO2 is still the bigger issue.

>but where's the talk about creating artificial meat to help climate change?
But it is actively developed, you mong.

>CO2 is still the bigger issue.
Uh huh.

Attached: co2-ppm-log-graph-550.jpg (550x338, 136K)

She's almost as retarded as you.

it is excessively costly, with worse flavor, texture, and nutritional value, and actively harmful to the world becuase it uses tremendous amounts of antibiotics, increasing the risk of creating resistent bacteria.
imagine not having any arguments
how much environmental damage do you think is caused by mining for rare earths, and how do you imagine electical grids produce the electricity to charge batteries?
how do you imagine is the efficiency of the grid to store and convert electrical power?
teslas, due to their batteries, are exceedingly heavy, causing deadlier collisions.
additionaly, the energy density of the batteries makes them very likely to explode in warm climes like much of the southwest US.
even if we were generating electricity through nuclear power, the drawbacks of batteries would male me want to use them in other, more efficient mass transport (trains) rather than personal vehicles.

Attached: argument-pyramid.jpg (640x486, 48K)

co2 acidifies water, which is a can of worms on its own.
more co2 in the air has a small, but measurable impact on warming.
only a small increase in average temperature can have an outsized effect as ice melts, causing additional release of methane from clathrates and warming the planet even more.

You want some natural gas, kids?
*farts*

Burning leaves is lame. That shit polutes more than a car in a whole year.

cont.
but the damage is already done,
cutting emissions doesnt put co2 back on the ground.
even with fantasy co2 sequestration, and return to preindustrial levels, we cannot undo the pther factors unleashed which will continue to warm the planet.
cutting further co2 emissions to zero might limit damage, or just slow down the process --- and incur tremendous economic losses.
but the qualities of petrol are too valuable and many, realistically, for that use to be reduced to zero, even with nuclear energy or whatever driving the grid.
minimizing co2 emmisions may be a victory, but a phyrric one -- too little too late, too costly, too ineffectual, too purposeless.
yet on the flipside, adopting other technologies we have wrongly abandoned in our dependence on fossil fuels, may be an unqualified victory in itself.

we are in the midst of another great exctinction, one already destroying much marine life, and which it is likely human will not have the means, or even the will to prevent.
thus the matter for human intelligence to consider, is how to adapt.
as an example, eating lower in the foodchain - insects or guinea pigs, could replace steak.

being no fan of trump, i doubt his ability to sustain an erection, even medicated.
yet is it impossible for you to spare any sympathy for a group of people, who, like the niggers you adore, are low iq and unable to adapt to a different means of earning a living?
a people who so strongly opposed slavery, they were willing to split the state of virginia apart for it, who were willing to fight heir brothers and neighbors to end that institution?

One almost suspects you arent the liberal you pretend to be

We are driving the car against the wall so why bother breaking cuz hitting a wall at 20 km/h and 50 km/h is totally the same right?

The worst effects of increased CO2 concentrations are yet to come and if we continue to emit at such a large scale they will only be worse.

> What is synthetic gas
> What is hydrogen

Methane contributes to roughly 20% of the greenhouse effect, with half of methane emissions coming from agriculture, and roughly 2/3rds of that coming from livestock. Add to that the energy usage of agriculture and you are still nowhere close to emissions from fossil fuel usage.

This isnt even considering that this contribution is calculated within a 100-year timeframe. Unlike CO2, methane is unstable and will degrade to CO2 and water when exposed to sunlight and air. Over long timeframes, its CO2-equivalent goes down significantly, which is why it isnt treated as such an urgent issue compared to CO2.

the analogy doesnt work, because co2 (as the chart shows) doesnt scale exponentially, but rather logarithmically (the inverse)
other factors (methane) are doing more damage than co2 (which differential effect, with the massive modern co2 compared to preindustrial co2, is minimal).

methane is not a problem on long timescales, because it degrades to co2
methane is an immediate problem (clathrates)
and it has a high differential impact compared to co2.

a better climate analogy is a car going downhill, without brakes
even if you gun the engines, there wont be a differenence in speed once you crash into that wall.

lmao what a dumbass

>EV cucks BTFO
Tell us how you're filling your shitbox with natural gas, user.

Attached: 1508106454683.jpg (960x494, 119K)