Quote:

---

Not at all if they can afford it, and that's up to them, but as I said what we do here is up to us. and we have the technology to greatly scale up our own energy needs with clean energy.

---

so called clean energy is heavily subsidized . SCOTUS decided that the emperor's rules exceeded the Clean Air Act mandates. So Trump's rules which achieve the same goals without killing the coal industry is the only game in town .Without it there is a regulatory vacuum. The emperor's rules are not coming back . Coal is losing in the market to natural gas .However ,the industry is investing in clean coal technology with the goal of reducing the cost to implement .The emperor's rule would've stopped that investment .

Quote:

---

The ocean has risen and fallen many times in the history of this planet

---

and the climate has changed from cold to hot and back many times. Only the cold periods were existential threats . Warming periods were eras of explosion of life. Look at humans . During the middle ages ,humans were almost as tall as they are today . But by the 1700s humans had lost

2.5 inches of height during the Little Ice Age. It took until the mid-20th century for humans to grow back to where they were in the 1400s
https://news.osu.edu/men-from-early-...-modern-people

Tom you are speaking reality, a message noone wants to hear

Yep. "Clean energy" is largely a pipe dream. Hydro works, but those resources have been just about maxed out. Solar and wind are not dependable enough other than in a very few areas, and even then not 100% reliable. No one wants a nuke reactor in their back yard. So it comes down to figuring out how to use fossil fuels in a cleaner fashion. That is going to take a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yep. "Clean energy" is largely a pipe dream. Hydro works, but those resources have been just about maxed out. Solar and wind are not dependable enough other than in a very few areas, and even then not 100% reliable. No one wants a nuke reactor in their back yard. So it comes down to figuring out how to use fossil fuels in a cleaner fashion. That is going to take a while.

---

I can somewhat agree, but have to add the real problem is costs, and limited resources to mitigate those costs. It always comes down to that and while the SCOTUS decision Tom sites saved the coal industry billions, it does nothing but shift those costs to consumers, and not just in energy costs, but the human costs in health as well. Just my opinion, but the EPA under this dufus is a scandal ridden joke, who shills for the industry and not only doesn't address the problem, but adds to it.

Short term profits for long term problems is not a solution.

If increasing costs is the really big concern, then solar and wind are not the answers. They are much less cost-effective than natural gas.

Depends on the region as you say, and your long term plan. You can get a tax break from solar panels on your house, but won't see a monetary return on the investment for years. It makes more sense to invest in wind and solar as a longer term strategy to supplement your primary sources, but it's like any investment, a trade off between short term investments to get a longer term solution. I always use the example of my state. Having big oil reserves, but also investing in wind farms of which we have a lot of those as well as gas and solar. Works for us here but every region has it's own challenges.

Might even help some kids asthma.

Quote:

---

You can get a tax break from solar panels on your house,

---

That does not decrease costs, it only transfers the cost to someone else and ultimately means a fed government even deeper in debt than it is now.

Solar and wind both have the problem of reliability. That means you must have "stand by" capabilities with conventional plants, all of which runs up the cost even higher.

Didn't say it's not complicated, but when the wind is blowing, or the sun is out, or the water flows, you loose less coal, or less whatever your primary energy is. See it as a back up, or supplement for now, but like anything else, if you can't afford the investment then you slog along and pay your bills and hope there is no emergency, or can expect no return later.

The other factor in this equation, and the main one is does the coal fired plant that supplies your region with power want to invest in alternative energy? Or alternative ways to deal with the waste products that are POISON to humans? It represents a cost to them either way, that they pass to consumers to keep their bottom lines viable.

Quote:

---

Didn't say it's not complicated, but when the wind is blowing, or the sun is out, or the water flows, you loose less coal, or less whatever your primary energy is. See it as a back up, or supplement for now,

---

Yes, that is true, but the problem is that you are having to pay for TWO kinds of power plants (for instance natural gas and solar) when one of them is really not needed just from the perspective of producing enough power. So we can do as you have suggested, but electrical bills will be going up a lot as a result of building so much surplus capacity. And while you and I can afford that, it is tough on poor people. And no, the 23 tril in debt fed government cannot pay their bills for them.

That may be true, but it's a decision power companies make, not you or I, based on their own data, which is based on feasibility, and profitability as indeed a windfarm where there is none is hardly feasible. Consumers pay for it but if it's profitable the power companies will do it. If they don't have to install scrubbers or any other technology to safeguard your air, water, or soil they wont. If they don't have to clean up their messes, they won't. That part is simple.

Texas can afford to invest in windfarms to cut the costs of using coal, MS maybe doesn't have the wind or sun that we have so it isn't feasible, but you have natural gas as a SUPPLEMENT. They sure don't feel responsible for your kids, or your grandkids, or even YOUR asthma though because they didn't install a scrubber to the power plant, nor will they pay for bottled water after your water source is fouled.

You pay for that yourself so enjoy your lights they provide you.

Quote:

---

That may be true, but it's a decision power companies make, not you or I, based on their own data, which is based on feasibility, and profitability as indeed a windfarm where there is none is hardly feasible. Consumers pay for it but if it's profitable the power companies will do it. If they don't have to install scrubbers or any other technology to safeguard your air, water, or soil they wont. If they don't have to clean up their messes, they won't. That part is simple.

Texas can afford to invest in windfarms to cut the costs of using coal, MS maybe doesn't have the wind or sun that we have so it isn't feasible, but you have natural gas as a SUPPLEMENT. They sure don't feel responsible for your kids, or your grandkids, or even YOUR asthma though because they didn't install a scrubber to the power plant, nor will they pay for bottled water after your water source is fouled.

---

No one would invest in solar or wind if not for fed subsidies. And in the meantime, the fed debt grows ever higher and higher.

Quote:

---

but the human costs in health as well.

---

that's because you buy into the SCOTUS nonsense that C02 is a pollutant that the EPA can regulate . You are living in the past Face the facts ,you kill the coal industry in the US the rest of the world will still use it as a energy source . It is in everyone's interest to continue to develop CCT . You are not concerned about the price to the consumer . Let's say it results in higher costs . Then there is your incentive to have your green energy compete in the market . (btw the only chance so called green energy is competitive is with heavy subsidies so who are you fooling ? )

Coal is subsidized too, so what?

Quote:

---

Coal is subsidized too, so what?

---

How is coal subsidized??

How is coal subsidized? LMGTFY. Saves me a lot of typing?

Quote:

---

How is coal subsidized? LMGTFY. Saves me a lot of typing?

---

In other words, you have no idea. However, perhaps we could agree that the government remove all subsidies from the energy sector. That would be one small step to reducing the budget deficit.

I looked it up, why can't you? Come on my friend, why do I have to do all the work, and likely you will blast me for it or dismiss the data or accuse me of making stuff up. You don't like my facts go get your own so I can do some blasting around here and YOU can do the ducking! If you want to that is.

Quote:

---

I looked it up, why can't you? Come on my friend, why do I have to do all the work, and likely you will blast me for it or dismiss the data or accuse me of making stuff up.

---

You made the allegation, so you need to back it up. I try to never ask other people to verify what I say is true. I think that's my job.

It was no allegation, just a statement of fact, easily verified.

Quote:

---

It was no allegation, just a statement of fact, easily verified.

---

Yeah. So easy you can't do it.