It helps to marry a rich widow. Tailoring's not cheap.
Is John Kerry a total idiot?
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
It helps to marry a rich widow. Tailoring's not cheap.
Yakuda
Verified User
Brandon cunt spewing stupidity
Yakuda
Verified User
Apparently you do you dimwitted fuck
Yakuda
Verified User
It sure does.
John Kerry announced that by 2030 the US "won't have coal." His implication is that by 2030 the coal industry will be dead and gone.
Of course, this presents a small problem that John Kerry being a technical illiterate doesn't recognize. That is, coal goes into more things than just producing electricity.
So, the US will still have coal production in 2030, and beyond. We need it for not just making electricity.
For example, if coal production were shut down in the US entirely, where does the US steel industry get coke from?
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-for-cokesteel.php
While coke only represents about 3% of the coal market, we will still need coal for that.
Or, for making isostatically pressed graphite. Or, for producing graphene.
The bottom line is that Kerry doesn't have a fucking clue and why is this lop our point man on a scientific and technical issue when he's an illiterate on both?
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384
Your question is rhetorical is it not?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, for the Left it isn't...
But you know they'll answer in the negative and start mewling about "Trump".
There are definitely alternatives. The challenge is using those alternatives. You are clearly not up to that challenge, but Kerry does seem up to them.
Obviously, calculus was invented for Newtonian Physics, and therefore applies to Relativity, which is a tweak of Newtonian. You really cannot do much without a really good understanding of calculus.
Energy mass equivalency is related to Relativity, but not technically part of it. To get to the point where you are converting whole atoms to energy, you would need a lot of calculus. Not quite sure where you would be doing that in the modern world, but maybe some day.
He also said “We will not have coal plants” thus clarifying his statement. I think their plan is to reduce the coal usage in power plants. Obviously some people still need coal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-coal-by-2030-john-kerry-predicts-in-glasgow
“By 2030 in the United States, we won’t have coal,” Kerry said Tuesday during an interview with Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait, at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow. “We will not have coal plants.”
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
John Kerry announced that by 2030 the US "won't have coal." His implication is that by 2030 the coal industry will be dead and gone.
Of course, this presents a small problem that John Kerry being a technical illiterate doesn't recognize. That is, coal goes into more things than just producing electricity.
So, the US will still have coal production in 2030, and beyond. We need it for not just making electricity.
For example, if coal production were shut down in the US entirely, where does the US steel industry get coke from?
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-for-cokesteel.php
While coke only represents about 3% of the coal market, we will still need coal for that.
Or, for making isostatically pressed graphite. Or, for producing graphene.
The bottom line is that Kerry doesn't have a fucking clue and why is this lop our point man on a scientific and technical issue when he's an illiterate on both?
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384
Idiot, no, sine he's gotten rich and powerful from this charade. The people that look at him as the high priest of climate change are the idiots.
Being in the Nuclear Navy could mean anything from you have a high school education to a PHD. Your vagueness makes me guess closer to a high school education. Also, putting a random, overly simplistic formula does not help your case.
I very much doubt the Nuclear Navy is converting whole atoms into energy, so you never used that formula in your life. Basically, you saw it online somewhere, and decided it meant something.
We should be building over 4% of our plants every year to replace out of date plants, and to grow our capability... So replacing 16% of our energy production should take a minimum of 4 years.
John Kerry announced that by 2030 the US "won't have coal." His implication is that by 2030 the coal industry will be dead and gone.
Of course, this presents a small problem that John Kerry being a technical illiterate doesn't recognize. That is, coal goes into more things than just producing electricity.
So, the US will still have coal production in 2030, and beyond. We need it for not just making electricity.
For example, if coal production were shut down in the US entirely, where does the US steel industry get coke from?
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-for-cokesteel.php
While coke only represents about 3% of the coal market, we will still need coal for that.
Or, for making isostatically pressed graphite. Or, for producing graphene.
The bottom line is that Kerry doesn't have a fucking clue and why is this lop our point man on a scientific and technical issue when he's an illiterate on both?
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384
In one word----------yes
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Not ones that are feasible on an economic or industrial scale there aren't. Hydrogen is one that is being experimented with that does work, but that requires cheap hydrogen gas, and that in turn requires cheap electricity. Not happening with wind and solar. You need nuclear and natural gas to even attempt to scale that up.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The problem with that is that as coal becomes scarce as a raw resource, its cost will become prohibitive and it will end production entirely. If there aren't alternatives in place, that will impact other industries that use coal for other than energy.