Ridingtosunsets ride into the sunset Meta thread of genius

[Sawbonz 27436]

6 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

The only other one they get is a depletion allowance, so they don't get unfairly taxed on oil in the ground if prices drop

you want to explain how 15% deduction on income derived from production has anything to do with not producing?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

9 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Come on man. Really coming with that? Not what the thread is about. Start one on how conservatives fucked everything up and I'll comment in it. 

You started a thread and asked how we got here. He answered your question, and in doing so, put blame on one of the potential causes you outlined in your original post. You didn’t like his answer, so you’re completely dismissing it. 

That’s where you are, and that’s how you got there.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Well I don't disagree that fossil fuels are subsidized.

A depletion allowance is akin to depreciation.  It recognizes that fossil fuel reserves lose value as they're produced or "used," much like most capital assets lose value from use and age.  Although they are somewhat unique to energy producers (timber owners can use them too, and I imagine quarry and mine owners also), they're not much of a subsidy.

Of course, you can argue that any tax break is a subsidy, and that's true, but depletion allowances aren't that "special."

I think you can probably expect subsidies or favorable government intervention in industries like energy that are important to national and economic security.  You can disagree with them.

But it's kind of fallacious to point at green energy and say "subsidies!!!11!!" while ignoring those granted to fossil fuels.

[wildcat09 29258]

9 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

I work in this field. I'm very educated in this field. I've read hours of literature and attended many seminars and lectures. I'm paid to know about this. There isn't one realistic path to solving this that doesn't require reducing the world's population by almost half. I spend too much time reading climate policy literature from partisan authors that are writing what they think wants to be read. Invest your money in renewables, I'll be shorting them. 

Oh cool, rising ecofascism.

[bernorange 8348]

10 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

This is a thread to discuss the obvious lack of tolerance we have now for opinions with which we don't agree. I have no delusions this will remain civil, thus the need for the discussion. 

I'm looking for discussion on how we got here, social media? politics? wealth inequality? mental health? How do we fix it and can it be fixed? 

My thoughts are we've been manipulated to this point by a) politicians who benefit from dividing and securing voting blocs b) media that feeds on division and hate c) social media that has desensitized and isolated us from real relationships with others d) our own vanity 

I have not read through the thread yet, so someone may already have raised the issue, but the issue is polarization.  In the political arena, It really started a parabolic trend after Reagan.  In the social arena, it's growth has been fueled by social media and internet bubbles.  The majority of people do not enjoy thinking.  Thinking requires effort.  People are lazy and will avoid it if an alternative is easily digested.  It's not a red or blue phenomenon. 

Solution for the political arena is to weaken political party hooks on politicians.  We need to lower the barriers to entry for folks to run for office.  I think increasing the number of Reps in the house (thus lowering the size of each Reps constituency and cost for campaining) is likely the best solution.  We have the technology to make it work.

Solution for the social arena is not so clear.   We just need to evolve a little bit.

[Goredho 17349]

Maybe the fact that there is a place where your ideas get constantly and consistently called out for their dangerous stupidity isn’t evidence of other people’s intolerance.  Maybe it’s evidence that you are just dangerously stupid.

If you, and I mean the proverbial you, really want to see people come together and the world to be a better place, you’ll quit focusing on what THEY need to do differently and start focusing on how YOU can be a better person in the world.  That’s it.  If enough people do that, it’s like a miracle, the world magically gets better.

 

[Dahobbs 17447]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

Let's say potentially superior concept shall we, because the current product is not superior (relative term here) because of cost, supply, and reliability. Once a power wall system is reliable, and energy can be stored, and is relatively cost efficient, solar can begin to build in to a great product for the average consumer.  

I've always railed against solar because the concept just wasn't ready for mainstream use because of the issues listed above.  Those issues are now being dealt with as the technology improves.

Cost is not an issue. Both onshore wind and utlity level solar are cheaper right now than combined cycle natural gas. I already provided the government report on this earlier. In fact, it is now cheaper to build new solar or wind than it is to run existing coal. That isn't to say either is a perfect power source or that there is no place for natural gas right now. 

[wildcat09 29258]

Imagine thinking that trying to mitigate the damage of climate change is bad but that dismantling American democracy is fine. No drug is as damaging to humanity as Republican propaganda. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Cost is not an issue. Both onshore wind and utlity level solar are cheaper right now than combined cycle natural gas. I already provided the government report on this earlier. In fact, it is now cheaper to build new solar or wind than it is to run existing coal. That isn't to say either is a perfect power source or that there is no place for natural gas right now. 

 Cost is always an issue especially when you get down to the folks that have to pay the bill every month. The initial cost of  infrastructure all of those things factors in as well.

 

where did you post that report I'd like to read through it ?

 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Reading half way through page 1 and seeing the OP thread cop a post that was 100% inline with the thread’s purpose, then moving straight to the last page where the OP is debating the merits of alternative energy sources is perfectly surly. Well done, OP.

what was your last handle? You seem familiar.

[Dahobbs 17447]

22 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 Cost is always an issue especially when you get down to the folks that have to pay the bill every month. The initial cost of  infrastructure all of those things factors in as well.

 

where did you post that report I'd like to read through it ?

 

 

Here ya go. It includes cost of construction. 

10 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

LCOE of onshore wind and utility solar is less than combined cycle natural gas, even without tax credits. Coal and nuclear aren't competitive. 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

I'm happy to provide more reports from other governments or other scientific studies if that is what you need. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That's how it started. I think most conservatives are guided by a right wing media led by Fox News.

I'm stilling holding that most conservatives and conservatives are have some level of critical thought and knowledge.  Most loudmouth morons are "guided by" cable news opinion.

Conservatives in general have been cowardly, or are in hiding, and perhaps may come out eventually.

[Beau Vine 54003]

19 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'm stilling holding that most conservatives and conservatives are have some level of critical thought and knowledge.  Most loudmouth morons are "guided by" cable news opinion.

Conservatives in general have been cowardly, or are in hiding, and perhaps may come out eventually.

is this another "silent majority" thing?

For some reason there is an awful lot of hiding on that side of the aisle...

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

is this another "silent majority" thing?

For some reason there is an awful lot of hiding on that side of the aisle...

That was a weird typo on my part.  I guess what I was trying to say is that I'm still using the titles conservative and liberal for people with some intelligence.  I know there are at least couple of intelligent conservatives out there because I know them personally. I was trying to get across that if you are "guided" by Fox or Rachel Maddow, you're not going to come across as very intelligent. 

It's not really a both sides argument.  It's simply an idea that if your purged al the Fox morons you probably would be left with a few actual conservatives, maybe even one with a conscience.

[gmr548 16517]

As someone who recently earned my first shitposting timeout, I just want to say OP set a new standard that I will forever aspire to.

[Biff Tannen 45499]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

That isn't to say either is a perfect power source or that there is no place for natural gas right now. 

This is what many people against something like GND can't seem to grasp.  It's all a zero sum game to them.  Immediate changeover to 100% renewables is of course not what any rational person would suggest.  Morons, your bus is leaving.

[Gatorubet 30115]

That is just a flat out, stupid ass, lie, but is about all to be expected from you.

You are correct. Republicans want to suppress voting and make it more difficult to vote because they value democracy sooooooo much, they want it for just themselves.

Plus, if you criminalize giving drinks to people waiting in long lines to vote, you help prevent the roofie/drugging and rape of women by Democrat poll watchers.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

24 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

That was a weird typo on my part.  I guess what I was trying to say is that I'm still using the titles conservative and liberal for people with some intelligence.  I know there are at least couple of intelligent conservatives out there because I know them personally. I was trying to get across that if you are "guided" by Fox or Rachel Maddow, you're not going to come across as very intelligent. 

It's not really a both sides argument.  It's simply an idea that if your purged al the Fox morons you probably would be left with a few actual conservatives, maybe even one with a conscience.

Can anyone even describe the conservative ideology anymore? 

[David Dennison 18660]

Just now, SmokeyTheBear said:

Can anyone even describe the conservative ideology anymore? 

For the base, it's own the libs. 

But it's really still about tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else. If that means appealing to and encouraging your base's worst impulses to win elections, so be it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You are correct. Republicans want to suppress voting and make it more difficult to vote because they value democracy sooooooo much, they want it for just themselves.

Plus, if you criminalize giving drinks to people waiting in long lines to vote, you help prevent the roofie/drugging and rape of women by Democrat poll watchers.

Is this the Ga. law saying you can give a bottled water to someone in line, but it can't have political candidates name or political party on the label ?

[Js1 85110]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

For the base, it's own the libs. 

But it's really still about tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else. If that means appealing to and encouraging your base's worst impulses to win elections, so be it.

Own the libs

Cut taxes (for the rich, not the people who need it)

Socialism BAD!

Restricting voting rights

Abortion BAD!

Government services for minorities BAD!  Welfare for corporations, farmers and poor white trash who vote R = GOOD! 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Js1

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

14 hours ago, Satchel said:

The Global Party Survey is a 2019 poll of nearly 2,000 experts on political parties from around the world. The survey asked respondents to rate political parties on two axes: the extent to which they are committed to basic democratic principles and their commitment to protecting rights for ethnic minorities. 

This chart shows the results of the survey for all political parties in the OECD, a group of wealthy democratic states, with the two major American parties highlighted in red. The GOP is an extreme outlier compared to mainstream conservative parties in other wealthy democracies, like Canada’s CPC or Germany’s CDU. Its closest peers are almost uniformly radical right and anti-democratic parties. This includes Turkey’s AKP (a regime that is one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists), and Poland’s PiS (which has threatened dissenting judges with criminal punishment). 
 

The verdict of these experts is clear: The Republican Party is one of the most anti-democratic political parties in the developed world.
 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22274429/republicans-anti-democracy-13-charts

 

 

 

 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Thread title change is classic. 

[Beau Vine 54003]

 

47 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Is this the Ga. law saying you can give a bottled water to someone in line, but it can't have political candidates name or political party on the label ?

Here's the actual text:

Notice where it says "norshall *ANY PERSON* give...food or drink to an elector?

Serious question...Are you just extremely misinformed about this, or were you purposely trying to spread misinformation?

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Beau Vine

[Js1 85110]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

Here's the actual text:

Notice where it says "not shall *ANY PERSON* give...food or drink to an elector?

Serious question...Are you just extremely misinformed about this, or were you purposely trying to spread misinformation?

 

Why not both? 

[Neonmoon 38127]

You have to study history to know how the Republican Party came to be, but the main sea changes were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Roe v Wade in 1973. Southern Democrats that opposed Civil rights reform and were pro Jim Crow flooded to the Republican Party after the act was passed. The evangelicals did the same after Roe v. Wade. Their base was formed by a combination of voters that were pro Jim Crow and pro Jesus. That cocktail combo attracts rural voters like flies on shit, which naturally brought the 2nd Amendment folks. The rich people who want low taxes, the “elites” mainly don’t give a shit about any of that, but guns are fun, and they can afford private abortion doctors, so whatever, they can pay off a mistress or have a beard, it doesn’t matter, they control the message anyway. They’ve already convinced all the poor whites that taxes were bad for them. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

47 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Is this the Ga. law saying you can give a bottled water to someone in line, but it can't have political candidates name or political party on the label ?

You can read the law yourself if you want. Here is what is says:

 

Quote

 

Section 21-2-414

(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

         (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

          (2) Within any polling place; or

          (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place. These restrictions shall not apply to conduct occurring in    private offices or areas which cannot be seen or heard by such electors."

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20527915-sb-202-as-passed

It pretty clearly prohibits any person, not just political entities or people handing out bottles with names or parties on the label, from providing food or drink to an elector within 150 feet of a polling place, within a polling place, or within 25 feet of a voter. The only exception is that poll workers may (not shall) make available self-service water (part (e), not quoted). 

Your more limited suggestion could have easily been written into the law, but they choose a broader prohibition precisely for the reason of making voting more difficult. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[elfenix 34171]

onboard's exemplar prohibition is already covered under the first clause in (a). 

[Dahobbs 17447]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

onboard's exemplar prohibition is already covered under the first clause in (a). 

Good point. And that was in the existing law. They added the other prohibitions to make it more difficult to vote. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17447]

16 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

This is a thread to discuss the obvious lack of tolerance we have now for opinions with which we don't agree. I have no delusions this will remain civil, thus the need for the discussion. 

This thread has actually turned into a great exemplar of the true issue, conflating facts with opinions. It makes it entirely impossible to have an actual discussion when one side doesn't just have a differing opinion on policy, but also denies objective reality. 

In this thread we've heard:

• From @Onboard 2.0: The Georgia law allows providing food and water so long as it doesn't display a political candidate or party's name. However, this is not true. The readily available text makes clear that it prohibits anyone from providing food or water, period. 
• From @Ridingtosunset:  Coal is a cheaper energy source than natural gas, wind, and solar. Readily available data from the government shows that even without subsidies, coal is more than twice as expensive as any of those sources. This should also be obvious by the fact that natural gas has been replacing coal for years. 
• From @Ridingtosunset: Suggested that renewable energy sources aren't actually environmentally friendly and produce more or the same CO2 over their lifecycle compared to fossil fuels. Again, readily available data shows that Solar and Wind (and nuclear for that matter) produce less than 10% of the CO2 a comparable Combined Cycle Natural gas plant does less than 5% of a comparable coal plant. 
• From @Ridingtosunset: China doesn't have more renewable energy capacity than the United States. The truth is it has double what the capacity of the Untied States. 
• From @ChickenSandwich: An insurrection isn't an insurrection, dictionary be damned. 

All of these aren't opinions, but rather misstatements of easily determined facts. None of these folks have (so far) admitted they were incorrect about these facts. There is no way to debate opinions on policy if we can't agree to objective reality. Incivility arises due to this break from reality. 

[Ridingtosunset 129]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

This thread has actually turned into a great exemplar of the true issue, conflating facts with opinions. It makes it entirely impossible to have an actual discussion when one side doesn't just have a differing opinion on policy, but also denies objective reality. 

In this thread we've heard:

• From @Onboard 2.0: The Georgia law allows providing food and water so long as it doesn't display a political candidate or party's name. However, this is not true. The readily available text makes clear that it prohibits anyone from providing food or water, period. 
• From @Ridingtosunset:  Coal is a cheaper energy source than natural gas, wind, and solar. Readily available data from the government shows that even without subsidies, coal is more than twice as expensive as any of those sources. This should also be obvious by the fact that natural gas has been replacing coal for years. 
• From @Ridingtosunset: Suggested that renewable energy sources aren't actually environmentally friendly and produce more or the same CO2 over their lifecycle compared to fossil fuels. Again, readily available data shows that Solar and Wind (and nuclear for that matter) produce less than 10% of the CO2 a comparable Combined Cycle Natural gas plant does less than 5% of a comparable coal plant. 
• From @Ridingtosunset: China doesn't have more renewable energy capacity than the United States. The truth is it has double what the capacity of the Untied States. 
• From @ChickenSandwich: An insurrection isn't an insurrection, dictionary be damned. 

All of these aren't opinions, but rather misstatements of easily determined facts. None of these folks have (so far) admitted they were incorrect about these facts. There is no way to debate opinions on policy if we can't agree to objective reality. Incivility arises due to this break from reality. 

I'd like to see your sources on those attributed to me. Anything suggesting coal is more expensive than wind and solar is using some very convoluted environmental cost factors. If I'm not banned by then, I'll respond. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

51 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

Here's the actual text:

Notice where it says "norshall *ANY PERSON* give...food or drink to an elector?

Serious question...Are you just extremely misinformed about this, or were you purposely trying to spread misinformation?

 

As it's not my state, I haven't read the law and only am recounting what I heard stated on a local radio program.  

[Dahobbs 17447]

7 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

I'd like to see your sources on those attributed to me. Anything suggesting coal is more expensive than wind and solar is using some very convoluted environmental cost factors. If I'm not banned by then, I'll respond. 

I've already provided them to you in this thread, including the government's report on Levelized Cost of Energy. Coal is dead. It is cheaper to build a new solar plant or wind farm than it is to run an existing coal plant in the US. Coal may be cheaper in some developing countries, but in pretty much every developed nation it is more expensive. Your response when given information was "why don't I invest in it myself." You refused to even read any of the dozen or so studies and news articles I cited.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17447]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

As it's not my state, I haven't read the law and only am recounting what I heard stated on a local radio program.  

So, are you willing to admit that what you heard was wrong? Are you willing to admit that YOU were wrong? Let's start there. 

[Ridingtosunset 129]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I've already provided them to you in this thread, including the government's report on Levelized Cost of Energy. Coal is dead. It is cheaper to build a new solar plant or wind farm than it is to run an existing coal plant in the US. Coal may be cheaper in some developing countries, but in pretty much every developed nation it is more expensive. Your response when given information was "why don't I invest in it myself." You refused to even read any of the dozen or so studies and news articles I cited.

You're only telling half the story. Why is it more expensive? You know why...we've regulated the shit out of it. Which is fine, I'm not a huge fan of coal. But coal is going nowhere. Germany tried to move away from it, that didn't go as planned. China and India will be churning out new coal plants for at least the next decade. To imply that solar and wind is cheaper than coal is disingenuous at best. 

[Bat Guano 359]

At the risk of derailing this productive discussion, I'll take a crack at answering the OP's original question. With a real answer.

 

How do we gain tolerance for views we disagree with? More exposure to those ideas. Here's an exercise that might help: for every opinion piece you read that you agree with, seek out one on the other side - preferably an intelligent one, not a crazy off-the-rails purely partisan hack job. Read it. And I mean REALLY read it, with an open mind, trying to suss out the facts of the issue, understand what the author is really trying to say. In particular, don't automatically take a kneejerk critical stance to the one that is on the opposite side of the one you agree with; read it with the same open-mindedness that you read the first one with. 

See if it changes your mind. If not, that's fine; but do the same thing again. Read both sides. Do it every day for a month; seriously, it won't hurt you. You might learn something; at the very least, it should create some tolerance for the other side in your own mind. Isn't that what this thread is asking?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So, are you willing to admit that what you heard was wrong? Are you willing to admit that YOU were wrong? Let's start there. 

Sure, I was www....   I was wwrrr...  I was wrong !!

There I said it ..

See......I have no problem saying I was wrong.  

[Beau Vine 54003]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Sure, I was www....   I was wwrrr...  I was wrong !!

There I said it ..

See......I have no problem saying I was wrong.  

[elfenix 34171]

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by elfenix

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

For you climate peeps, John Kerry is speaking right now at the press briefing. (Earth Day/Climate Summit). They currently have over 55% of the worlds GDP on board with some of the proposals at the summit. He says, (and I didn't fact check) that the market is driving this more and more because whomever is the first to harness this in an economically feasible way is going to be in the driver's seat, (paraphrase).

[Captainant 27465]

14 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

You're only telling half the story. Why is it more expensive? You know why...we've regulated the shit out of it. Which is fine, I'm not a huge fan of coal. But coal is going nowhere. Germany tried to move away from it, that didn't go as planned. China and India will be churning out new coal plants for at least the next decade. To imply that solar and wind is cheaper than coal is disingenuous at best. 

No, coal is more expensive than NG and renewables because it requires a shitload of effort to mine out, transport by freight car or truck, burn, filter, and handle the waste product. You're acting like the regulations against coal to minimize ash and byproducts in the air are some onerous thing - I prefer less acid rain and mercury in the water myself, but if you prefer to ignore those negative externalities that's your prerogative I suppose.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Also, John Kerry meanders around a question more than a duck around a pond. I would say he is thinking before he speaks, but I'm going to withhold judgement on that.

*Note--the percentage I referred to above is a commitment to the 1.5 degree threshold.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins

[Neonmoon 38127]

6 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

For you climate peeps, John Kerry is speaking right now at the press briefing. (Earth Day/Climate Summit). They currently have over 55% of the worlds GDP on board with some of the proposals at the summit. He says, (and I didn't fact check) that the market is driving this more and more because whomever is the first to harness this in an economically feasible way is going to be in the driver's seat, (paraphrase).

Bingo. It’s a better product. Ask any consumer. If prices were the same. Would you rather have energy made from oil/gas or the sun/wind? The prices will keep getting lower and lower. Technology will keep getting better and better. 

[Chewbacca 7730]

16 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

With all due respect, not looking for the dissection of the thread title. Or the literal legal consequences. More of a discussion of how our tolerance of others has brought us to this place in 2021. 

Is this where I say Fuck Your Feelings?  Or is that later?

[tantric superman 4667]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

For the base, it's own the libs. 

But it's really still about tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else. If that means appealing to and encouraging your base's worst impulses to win elections, so be it.

That's pretty lazy. 

The key is, if you hear what appears to be a relatively decently thought out "conservative" viewpoint (the Green New Deal should be about practical scientific approaches to cutting emissions and not about labor issues/the stimulus is overkill and puts us in budgetary danger/(I'm honestly running out of potential examples, such as been the dearth of good conservative arguments in recent years) then those are the arguments that one should engage in.

I'm all for contempt of ill-informed positions and encourage ignoring those. I hate it when people on this board link to some stupid ass moron's behavior or arguments that we are all made stupider by hitting the link.

[wildcat09 29258]

39 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

As it's not my state, I haven't read the law and only am recounting what I heard stated on a local radio program.  

Lol

[Dahobbs 17447]

43 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

You're only telling half the story. Why is it more expensive? You know why...we've regulated the shit out of it. Which is fine, I'm not a huge fan of coal. But coal is going nowhere. Germany tried to move away from it, that didn't go as planned. China and India will be churning out new coal plants for at least the next decade. To imply that solar and wind is cheaper than coal is disingenuous at best. 

It is more expensive because it costs more to source and burn coal than it does either natural gas, the sun, or wind. Part of that cost is environmental regulations that apply to other industries as well. Those environmental regulations force industry to become responsible for the negative externalities associated with their industry. Externalities are a just another form of cost, and they should be included in the total cost of energy to get an accurate picture. An easy example of that is the factory that damages a water supply. Sure, it is cheaper for the factory to dump everything into our water supply rather than properly dispose it,  shifting a cost from the factory to society at large. Through litigation and environmental regulations, we make sure that the factory has to pay for the damage it causes so as to incentivize it to properly dispose of the waste. That also results in the economically most efficient result because it better accounts for the true cost of the factory operating. 

Another non-environmental example would be a company that sells widgets. It could either pay to make the widgets itself for say $10 a widget. Or, it could just steal the widgets from a competing factory for free. Sure, it is a better deal for that company to sell widgets that cost it nothing. But, it isn't the fair or economical result.  

Here, our regulations have accounted for some of the external cost of the coal powerplant in terms of the damage it can do to air quality. However, all fossil fuels currently benefit from a massive indirect subsidy because the CO2 they produce (and the damage it causes) isn't accounted for in the costs. And, it isn't accounted for in the Levelized Cost of Energy calculations made by the government in that report. 

Back to the point: your assertion that coal is cheaper is demonstrably incorrect. What you meant to say is that coal would be cheaper if hypothetically we had no environmental laws or regulations. We don't live in the world, so your statement was false. And, frankly, I don't think the hypothetical is a given either. The fact is the a coal powerplant has on going operating costs and fuel costs that wind and solar don't have to deal with. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Hornius Emeritus 12420]

41 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

You're only telling half the story. Why is it more expensive? You know why...we've regulated the shit out of it. Which is fine, I'm not a huge fan of coal. But coal is going nowhere. Germany tried to move away from it, that didn't go as planned. China and India will be churning out new coal plants for at least the next decade. To imply that solar and wind is cheaper than coal is disingenuous at best. 

Just want to make sure that @Horn Under a Bad Sign   sees this post as he has exquisitely demolished this point in the past.

[Beau Vine 54003]

22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No, coal is more expensive than NG and renewables because it requires a shitload of effort to mine out, transport by freight car or truck, burn, filter, and handle the waste product. You're acting like the regulations against coal to minimize ash and byproducts in the air are some onerous thing - I prefer less acid rain and mercury in the water myself, but if you prefer to ignore those negative externalities that's your prerogative I suppose.

The only way coal is less expensive is if you completely ignore the externalities of coal mining/use, which our resident energy expert is doing for some reason. 

[tantric superman 4667]

16 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

Because younger people are dumb shits and are confused easily?

Plus fuck their vocal fry, the little assholes.

I use ellipses formally all the time when leaving out portions of statutes or legal regulations. 

I think they can be a nice tool to imply some space before a punchline or an idea.  I use them informally when I want to convey a greater sense of trailing off in thought or time than a simple period would show.  Or if one wants to state a conclusion that has a slight chance of proving to be untrue.

I realize in a text message, if someone asks me how something went, I will tell them and it it with a period.

If they are asking me about how a game is going and my team is winning, I will admit I'm more likely to say "Texas looks pretty good so far, but only have way through the second...." to me represents a more interesting visual to accompany the idea of not knowing how things will turn out than if I just used  period.

Yeah, the aggies look pretty good this year...for me to poop on.

I grow old ... I grow old ...
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

 

"We have never finished Hamlet, Marianne; our dear Willoughby went away before we could get through it. We will put it by, that when he comes again...But it may be months, perhaps, before THAT happens."