What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Biden climate change order to tell federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (1 Viewer)

Stealthycat

Stealthycat

Footballguy
Conservative boards I go to hate me because I'm all for moving away from fossil fuels. Not radically that it kills the economy but we are moving that direction and I'm ok with it.

The biggest problem is 63% of our electric comes from burning fossil fuels. about 20% nuclear. only 7% from wind and 7% solar

Now, unless the USA is going to build dozens of nuclear reactors (and I'm ok with that) .... or erect literally 10's of millions of wind turbines in the nest few years .... how are we going to move away from fossil fuels that fast? and who's paying for it ?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-climate-change-order-fossil-fuel-subsidies

President Biden is set to take “aggressive action” Wednesday to tackle climate change and is expected to take a number of executive actions focused on jobs, “equitable” clean energy and “restoring” scientific integrity across the federal government.

On the campaign trail, Biden called for the U.S. to phase out its dependence on fossil fuels.

Biden’s order on Wednesday is set to "empower" American workers and businesses to “lead a clean energy revolution” that would achieve a carbon pollution-free sector by 2035, while putting the U.S. on an “irreversible path to a net-zero economy by 2050.”

The order affirms that the U.S. “will exercise its leadership to promote a significant increase in global ambition,” while making clear that “both significant short-term global emission reductions and net-zero global emissions by mid-century—or before—are required to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you make the energy sector a pollution free sector by 2035?  The only path is a massive de-regulation which includes opening up a path for rapid approval for building nuclear plants.   A bunch of solar and wind farms ain't doing it.   But nuclear is a no-go for most Democrats.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is with wind/solar you need to have backup power available to spin up on demand if there is an period of clouds/no wind, etc. The infrastructure cost is double, you need to pay for the solar panels and then you have to pay for a gas plant and the maintenance of that gas plant for the cloudy days.

Nuclear is the way to go.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
How do you make the energy sector a pollution free sector by 2035?  The only path is a massive de-regulation which includes opening up a path for rapid approval for building nuclear plants.   A bunch of solar and wind farms ain't doing it.   But nuclear is a no-go for most Democrats.  
Click to expand...
right, to get nuclear project approved and built would take a decade or longer just to fight the people that don't want it

wind is a lot cause to run this nation IMO and 60% of the solar panels are built in China I read and they're a landfill disaster

solar .... if every house in the USA had viable panels and a system to store the electricity and such MIGHT be possible but again, it'd take decades and the cost enormous

so .... what's the solution ?   gradual is one thing - but Biden has just made that impossible

so ... ???  

 
Stealthycat said:
right, to get nuclear project approved and built would take a decade or longer just to fight the people that don't want it

wind is a lot cause to run this nation IMO and 60% of the solar panels are built in China I read and they're a landfill disaster

solar .... if every house in the USA had viable panels and a system to store the electricity and such MIGHT be possible but again, it'd take decades and the cost enormous

so .... what's the solution ?   gradual is one thing - but Biden has just made that impossible

so ... ???  
Click to expand...
Residential is only around 30% of the electricity demand in the country, and not all residential is compatible with solar panels, ie apartments.

Some commercial like wal-marts and lowes can have solar panels on their roofs as well, but even then you are still under 30% of the electricity demand in the country AND you need gas power plants for when the sun is not shining.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MTskibum said:
Residential is only around 30% of the electricity demand in the country, and not all residential is compatible with solar panels, ie apartments.

Some commercial like wal-marts and lowes can have solar panels on their roofs as well, but even then you are still under 50% of the electricity demand in the country AND you need gas power plants for when the sun is not shining.
Click to expand...
so what is the solution ?

gradually moving towards isn't happening with this king Biden EO

 
MTskibum said:
Residential is only around 30% of the electricity demand in the country, and not all residential is compatible with solar panels, ie apartments.

Some commercial like wal-marts and lowes can have solar panels on their roofs as well, but even then you are still under 30% of the electricity demand in the country AND you need gas power plants for when the sun is not shining.
Click to expand...
I thought solar panels stored up energy when it's sunny that it can use when it's not sunny. When you say "you need gas power plants for when the sun is not shining", I picture a scenario where the solar panels don't work at all once the sun sets or a it's too cloudy; that all the power in the building goes out at night and then comes back on at sunrise. 

 
dgreen said:
I thought solar panels stored up energy when it's sunny that it can use when it's not sunny. When you say "you need gas power plants for when the sun is not shining", I picture a scenario where the solar panels don't work at all once the sun sets or a it's too cloudy; that all the power in the building goes out at night and then comes back on at sunrise. 
Click to expand...
Solar panels do not store electricity, you need batteries for those. Which would add another level of complexity and cost.

 
MTskibum said:
Solar panels do not store electricity, you need batteries for those. Which would add another level of complexity and cost.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is arguing this is going to be cheap or easy. Cheap and easy is continuing down the path of relying on oil from war torn countries

 
dgreen said:
I thought solar panels stored up energy when it's sunny that it can use when it's not sunny. When you say "you need gas power plants for when the sun is not shining", I picture a scenario where the solar panels don't work at all once the sun sets or a it's too cloudy; that all the power in the building goes out at night and then comes back on at sunrise. 
Click to expand...
Panels don't store energy.  You'd have to build in some sort of storage mechanism.  Lots of ideas around - everything from cracking water to generate hydrogen to stacking concrete blocks.   Love the blocks idea - genius.  Not sure it's scalable, but genius.  Battery storage isn't suitable (it degrades and it's expensive).  Geothermal is another stopgap that may work - it's expensive, but the economics can work in some places. 

This is why I'm against the Paris Accord - it does nothing but spend money for no tangible benefit when we need to be spending that money on fusion, fission, and storage research to shift over.  (and Paris is nothing but an economic gift to China).  

 
dawgtrails said:
I don't think anyone is arguing this is going to be cheap or easy. Cheap and easy is continuing down the path of relying on oil from war torn countries
Click to expand...
We get 80% of our oil from domestic, canada, and mexico but I understand the point you tried to make.

 
For anyone interested in reading of the EO itself it's out there.....this is a pretty fair summary if you don't want to read through the whole thing.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-executive-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific-integrity-across-federal-government/#:~:text=The order directs federal agencies,clean energy technologies and infrastructure.

Specific to this topic, it's removing the subsidies for fossil fuels.  It's not removing the option of fossil fuels.  I have to think the "BUT SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!" guys would be happy about this no?

 
dgreen said:
I thought solar panels stored up energy when it's sunny that it can use when it's not sunny. When you say "you need gas power plants for when the sun is not shining", I picture a scenario where the solar panels don't work at all once the sun sets or a it's too cloudy; that all the power in the building goes out at night and then comes back on at sunrise. 
Click to expand...
Batteries are getting better and better, but not there quite yet.  Should easily be there in the 30 year window though.

 
The Commish said:
Batteries are getting better and better, but not there quite yet.  Should easily be there in the 30 year window though.
Click to expand...
They still require a lot of mining and manufacturing and they will degrade and need to be recycled, etc.  I'm hoping hydrogen works - simpler and the stock is water.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
The Commish said:
For anyone interested in reading of the EO itself it's out there.....this is a pretty fair summary if you don't want to read through the whole thing.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-executive-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific-integrity-across-federal-government/#:~:text=The order directs federal agencies,clean energy technologies and infrastructure.

Specific to this topic, it's removing the subsidies for fossil fuels.  It's not removing the option of fossil fuels.  I have to think the "BUT SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!" guys would be happy about this no?
Click to expand...
It is just shifting subsidies from one sector to the other I imagine. Which I am fine with, but I can imagine people in the oil and gas field aren't exactly excited about

 
MTskibum said:
The problem is with wind/solar you need to have backup power available to spin up on demand if there is an period of clouds/no wind, etc. The infrastructure cost is double, you need to pay for the solar panels and then you have to pay for a gas plant and the maintenance of that gas plant for the cloudy days.

Nuclear is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Of course it's doable without additional nuclear.

Xcel Energy is a $35B utility that is already at 40% carbon-free...and has stated goals of 60% carbon free by 2027 and 100% carbon-free by 2050.

All without adding to its existing 12-13% nuclear contribution.

Utilities are the key to de-carbonizing the power sector, and they are already well on their way to doing so. 

https://www.xcelenergy.com/environment/carbon_reduction_plan

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
The electric power sector is basically a done deal to be carbon-free by 2050. They are already well down that path...however they only represent 27% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The bigger challenges are the transportation, agricultural, real estate and industrial sectors. They collectively contribute the other 73% and have made nowhere near the progress the power sector has.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 
Stealthycat said:
so what is the solution ?

gradually moving towards isn't happening with this king Biden EO
Click to expand...
Umm...in what way is that EO not pushing to gradually move forward?

dawgtrails said:
It is just shifting subsidies from one sector to the other I imagine. Which I am fine with, but I can imagine people in the oil and gas field aren't exactly excited about
Click to expand...
Especially when those subsidies seem to be things that would create domestic jobs...correct?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Nuclear vs. solar/wind is definitely a both/and situation, not an either/or situation.  It's not really helpful to set these up as competitors to one another.
Click to expand...
Nobody is advocating that nuclear is the exclusive solution.  Put up solar and wind farms at your hearts content.  Everyone here agrees with what you said.  It is the Democrats who are making it solar/wind only.  

 
Stoneworker said:
The electric power sector is basically a done deal to be carbon-free by 2050. They are already well down that path...however they only represent 27% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The bigger challenges are the transportation, agricultural, real estate and industrial sectors. They collectively contribute the other 73% and have made nowhere near the progress the power sector has.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Click to expand...
Biden wants the electric power sector carbon free by 2035, not 2050.  Everyone else has until 2050.  Obviously he won't be president that long, so his EO is pretty meaningless.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stoneworker said:
Of course it's doable without additional nuclear.

Xcel Energy is a $35B utility that is already at 40% carbon-free...and has stated goals of 60% carbon free by 2027 and 100% carbon-free by 2050.

All without adding to its existing 12-13% nuclear contribution.

Utilities are the key to de-carbonizing the power sector, and they are already well on their way to doing so. 

https://www.xcelenergy.com/environment/carbon_reduction_plan
Click to expand...
It is easy for one company to do that with how the grid is structured. If they are unable to meet demand they can buy power from a competitor to resale.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
jon_mx said:
Biden wants the electric power sector carbon free by 2035, not 2050.  Everyone else has until 2050.  Obviously he want be president that long, so his EO is pretty meaningless.  
Click to expand...
Yeah. Personally, I would back off the power sector goal since the last 15-20% is going to be diminishing returns. Focus resources on the other sectors where there is much better ROI at this stage.  

 
Sand said:
They still require a lot of mining and manufacturing and they will degrade and need to be recycled, etc.  I'm hoping hydrogen works - simpler and the stock is water.
Click to expand...
Yep...understood.  I'm confident we can come up with the solution but we have to incentivize coming up with that solution too.

 
Stoneworker said:
Yeah. Personally, I would back off the power sector goal since the last 15-20% is going to be diminishing returns. Focus resources on the other sectors where there is much better ROI at this stage.  
Click to expand...
That is the key.  It needs to be focused on ROI rather than some political rhetotic.  Where is it most cost-effective and what is the overall impact and consider the impact from contruction and production too.  So many considerations are glossed over which will lead to unintended consequences. 

 
im glad to see this discussion be about 2035 vs 2050 to go carbon free instead of should we or should we not require sectors to go carbon free because for too long that was the debate and it has hurt american innovation and hurt the environment take that to the bank brohans 

 
MTskibum said:
It is easy for one company to do that with how the grid is structured. If they are unable to meet demand they can buy power from a competitor to resale.
Click to expand...
I understand exactly how the grid is structured.  And it is incredibly misleading to imply that Xcel is just some outlier for which carbon-free is "easy" due to some exclusive power trading arrangements.

Most of the country's largest utilities are on the exact same path as Xcel, and they started long before Biden took office. They are doing so primarily due to multi-billion dollar investments in company-owned renewable energy assets. Those that aren't will soon be obsolete.

Dominion - 7.5 million customers...at least 30 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and shut down all carbon-emitting power plants by 2045.

Duke - 7.7 million customers...self-imposed net-zero carbon by 2050 goals

Southern Company - 4.2 million customers....net-zero carbon by 2050 goal

Public Service Enterprise Group - 3.2 million customers....50 percent by 2030, 100 percent clean energy by 2050. 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-5-biggest-u.s-utilities-committing-to-zero-carbon-emissions-by-mid-century

 
MTskibum said:
We get 80% of our oil from domestic, canada, and mexico but I understand the point you tried to make.
Click to expand...
we GOT our oil from there - who knows what will be in 4 years with Biden's attacks on oil industry

Stoneworker said:
I understand exactly how the grid is structured.
Click to expand...
Stoneworker do you work for energy / electric grid etc? with great insight into it all ?  if so, how do you think it can be accomplished in such a short period ?

 
Stoneworker said:
I understand exactly how the grid is structured.  And it is incredibly misleading to imply that Xcel is just some outlier for which carbon-free is "easy" due to some exclusive power trading arrangements.

Most of the country's largest utilities are on the exact same path as Xcel, and they started long before Biden took office. They are doing so primarily due to multi-billion dollar investments in company-owned renewable energy assets. Those that aren't will soon be obsolete.

Dominion - 7.5 million customers...at least 30 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and shut down all carbon-emitting power plants by 2045.

Duke - 7.7 million customers...self-imposed net-zero carbon by 2050 goals

Southern Company - 4.2 million customers....net-zero carbon by 2050 goal

Public Service Enterprise Group - 3.2 million customers....50 percent by 2030, 100 percent clean energy by 2050. 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-5-biggest-u.s-utilities-committing-to-zero-carbon-emissions-by-mid-century
Click to expand...


They are an outlier though, they produce 40% by renewables and only 23% by natural gas, both of those are not close to the current natural average. That is the definition of an outlier.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

It is clear that we will not see eye to eye. I think that nuclear energy is the way to go forward. Not just because of our current needs but also because like you posted earlier only 30% of our energy is electricity today. Transportation was a huge number. How we can power all of those electric cars going forward is nuclear power.  I do not think that solar/wind can meet the future electricity needs even when not considering electric cars, but it is no where close when that is considered.

You can have the last response, I will read it, and give you a like.

 
Better get started, it takes on average 7 years to construct a new nuclear plant and assuming you want American companies to do it, there aren't that many that are qualified. 

Trump signed the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act in 2017.  Biden has said he is for nuclear, however, the Green New Deal as you know calls for elimination of all nuclear plants.  That would be going backwards not forwards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MTskibum said:
They are an outlier though, they produce 40% by renewables and only 23% by natural gas, both of those are not close to the current natural average. That is the definition of an outlier.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

It is clear that we will not see eye to eye. I think that nuclear energy is the way to go forward. Not just because of our current needs but also because like you posted earlier only 30% of our energy is electricity today. Transportation was a huge number. How we can power all of those electric cars going forward is nuclear power.  I do not think that solar/wind can meet the future electricity needs even when not considering electric cars, but it is no where close when that is considered.

You can have the last response, I will read it, and give you a like.
Click to expand...
It's cool. I'm not looking for confrontation.

I would agree that advanced, small-scale modular reactors have a potentially important role in the energy mix going forward.

 
Stealthycat said:
we GOT our oil from there - who knows what will be in 4 years with Biden's attacks on oil industry

Stoneworker do you work for energy / electric grid etc? with great insight into it all ?  if so, how do you think it can be accomplished in such a short period ?
Click to expand...
I'm no expert by any means but have invested and worked in the clean energy space. When you say "it" as an accomplishment, what exactly are you referring to?

 
Stoneworker said:
I'm no expert by any means but have invested and worked in the clean energy space. When you say "it" as an accomplishment, what exactly are you referring to?
Click to expand...
what is the most viable way to ween from fossil fuels ?

I mean its a vast issue - even not talking about how to manufacturer electric everything to replace the fuel burning everything's .... the core problem is, WHERE is the electric going to come from ?

in your opinion nuclear, wind, solar or ??  its not a gradual transition now 

 
Stealthycat said:
what is the most viable way to ween from fossil fuels ?

I mean its a vast issue - even not talking about how to manufacturer electric everything to replace the fuel burning everything's .... the core problem is, WHERE is the electric going to come from ?

in your opinion nuclear, wind, solar or ??  its not a gradual transition now 
Click to expand...
IMO we are headed toward "electrify everything," and then to ensure that that electricity generated is from clean sources. The actual clean sources themselves will be dependent on the application and driven by economics.

For example, lithium-ion battery-driven EV's may be most economical for cars that go long distances, but Amazon EV vans that deliver Door Dash along many short urban routes will likely be economically better off with hydrogen fuel-cells.

The most common misconception is that it's a technology problem. It's not. The biggest problem is that the health and environmental costs of carbon is not incorporated into the price of fossil fuels. Therefore clean energy technologies do not get proper market-based price signals that would accelerate investment and mainstream adoption.

Carbon tax is the best and most obvious answer to that, however it is a political non-starter. So we are left with mandates, tax-breaks, etc. These incentives need to be increasingly directed at market development (e.g. huge government purchases, gov't funded pilot projects) to de-risk new technologies for private investors, as well as take existing technologies down the cost curve so they can then be adopted by the mainstream.

Solar and wind have followed this exact path, having been subsidized by Germany, Japan, the U.S. and China and now they easily stand toe-to-toe with fossil fuel costs.

So it's already happening...but because we are in a race to avoid irreversible climate damage...it needs to be accelerated by gov't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
Better get started, it takes on average 7 years to construct a new nuclear plant and assuming you want American companies to do it, there aren't that many that are qualified. 

Trump signed the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act in 2017.  Biden has said he is for nuclear, however, the Green New Deal as you know calls for elimination of all nuclear plants.  That would be going backwards not forwards.
Click to expand...
I believe the Southern Company expansion in Georgia took a decade to get permitted.  Just interminable.

Though the new Gen 3 reactors are failsafe and would be a great energy source.  As would a thorium cycle plant (I have a whole thread on that in the FFA).

 
Does Biden and the Dems realize halting drilling does decrease the consumption of oil, it just means we spend more for oil and send thaf money to Arabs instead of Americans.  By what asinine logic does this make sense? 

 
jon_mx said:
Does Biden and the Dems realize halting drilling does decrease the consumption of oil, it just means we spend more for oil and send thaf money to Arabs instead of Americans.  By what asinine logic does this make sense? 
Click to expand...
It doesn't, though the thought of bankrupting the middle east is appealing.  That is a definite silver lining in all of this.

 
jon_mx said:
Does Biden and the Dems realize halting drilling does decrease the consumption of oil, it just means we spend more for oil and send thaf money to Arabs instead of Americans.  By what asinine logic does this make sense? 
Click to expand...
Isn't the whole thing is to get us away from so much oil consumption 

 
Stoneworker said:
So it's already happening...but because we are in a race to avoid irreversible climate damage...it needs to be accelerated by gov't.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the answer though - where is all this electricity going to come from ?

63% of the way our electricity is generated has to be filled - 83% if we're going to a non-nuclear country like the left wants

HOW will that energy be captured ?

 
jon_mx said:
Does Biden and the Dems realize halting drilling does decrease the consumption of oil, it just means we spend more for oil and send thaf money to Arabs instead of Americans.  By what asinine logic does this make sense? 
Click to expand...
Not everything is viewed through the lense of what is going to cost us less now or in the future. 

 
The solar panels we primarily use in this country come primarily from Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, SK etc....at least this was true in 2019 (we had a bunch of panels put on our house and that's the first question I asked).  We had begun working a good bit with Canada (where our actual panels came from at the time) but tariffs were inexplicably put on panels from Canada as part of the tariff war apparently.  We also get some from Mexico.  

I think it was this thread (sorry, don't remember) someone said they came from China....that's not true unless there's been a huge change from 2019 to 2020.

 
Stealthycat said:
I didn't read the answer though - where is all this electricity going to come from ?

63% of the way our electricity is generated has to be filled - 83% if we're going to a non-nuclear country like the left wants

HOW will that energy be captured ?
Click to expand...
Nobody knows the exact "answer" what electricity production will look like in 30 years, so have no idea why you're attempting to pin me down on this. That said, I'll play along.

There are multiple feasible "pathways" to achieving zero-carbon status in 2050 that have been proposed by many reputable sources. One from Stanford outlines the following technologies for a 139-country transition. 

If you do your own homework, I'm sure you'll find most are consistent with this. 

-  The electricity generation technologies include onshore and offshore wind turbines, concentrated solar power, geothermal heat and electricity, rooftop and utility-scale solar PVs, tidal and wave power, and hydropower. 

-   Technologies for ground transportation include battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and BEV-hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) hybrids, where the hydrogen is electrolytic (produced by electrolysis or passing electricity through water).

-   Air heating and cooling are powered by ground-, air-, or water-source electric heat pumps. Water heat is generated by heat pumps with an electric resistance element for low temperatures and/or solar hot water preheating. Cook stoves are electric induction.

-   Electric arc furnaces, induction furnaces, and dielectric heaters are used to power high-temperature industrial processes directly

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

 
The Commish said:
The solar panels we primarily use in this country come primarily from Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, SK etc....at least this was true in 2019 (we had a bunch of panels put on our house and that's the first question I asked).  We had begun working a good bit with Canada (where our actual panels came from at the time) but tariffs were inexplicably put on panels from Canada as part of the tariff war apparently.  We also get some from Mexico.  

I think it was this thread (sorry, don't remember) someone said they came from China....that's not true unless there's been a huge change from 2019 to 2020.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that a lot of the heavy metals used to make solar panels and those batteries in electric cars came from China, not that the batteries and panels were themselves assembled there.

Lots of things are made from parts manufactured all over the place. Your car probably has parts made in 10 or more different countries

 
renesauz said:
I was under the impression that a lot of the heavy metals used to make solar panels and those batteries in electric cars came from China, not that the batteries and panels were themselves assembled there.

Lots of things are made from parts manufactured all over the place. Your car probably has parts made in 10 or more different countries
Click to expand...
I never dug down to the raw materials level honestly.  I just saw (at least I thought I did) the claim that the panels come from China....that was 100% not true...they weren't even top 5 at the time.  Maybe that changed last year, not sure.

 
The Commish said:
I never dug down to the raw materials level honestly.  I just saw (at least I thought I did) the claim that the panels come from China....that was 100% not true...they weren't even top 5 at the time.  Maybe that changed last year, not sure.
Click to expand...
Here is some good info from NREL on the topic for anyone interested...

Also, there could be some confusion caused by referencing country where physical production facilities are located vs. geographic home of company that owns those facilities.

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-supply-chain.html

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do Democrats Intentionally Ignore How Much Fossil Fuel It Takes To Power Electric Cars? (6/7/22 1:10 PST)
Replies
13
Views
711
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
timschochet
Is nuclear energy the answer to climate change?
2 3 4
Replies
199
Views
4K
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top