More bad news for coal: Wind and solar are getting cheaper

[Moderate Right]

So why do you get upset if we say put Yosemite up for sale to strip mall developers and let the free market take care of it? The free market takes care of everything, right?

You guys can't even debate honestly without throwing up a pile of dung. I've said several times that we need government regulation but that it should not be used to purposely put people out of business. Are there any strip malls currently at Yosemite? If so, then I agree with you. If not, then your post is just a pile of dung.

 

[Moderate Right]

Before arguing something you ought to look at the actual statistics. Yes, wind mills kill birds. However, coal mining kills exponentially more birds.

Wind energy kills between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year.

Coal mining kills roughly 7.9 million birds a year.

Whether you are talking about air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, habitat loss, soil loss, or any other measure of environmental destruction, coal mining is in a league of its own. No other human activity even comes close.

Then we need to purposely put all coal miners and all wind mills out of business. Get rid of them all and let all the workers collect unemployment. Better yet, we can find jobs for them at Walmart for $15 per hour, that is if there are any Walmarts left in those areas after the government drives these businesses out of business.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Then we need to purposely put all coal miners and all wind mills out of business. Get rid of them all and let all the workers collect unemployment. Better yet, we can find jobs for them at Walmart for $15 per hour, that is if there are any Walmarts left in those areas after the government drives these businesses out of business.

Are you wanting to debate or just sarcastically whine?

The point is, that coal is far and away the dirtiest form of energy we have. Coal mining is the most environmental destructive activity man has ever engaged in. Everything, including nuclear, hydro, natural gas, oil, geothermal, and of course wind and solar, is cleaner than coal from both a power generation standpoint, and certainly from a production standpoint. Even with the worst, worst case scenario with natural gas fracking, its still an order of magnitude cleaner than coal mining.

If coal mining companies faced the same level of environmental regulation in terms of mitigating environmental impacts that even oil company faced, they would out of business in the Eastern United States. So when you say minimal regulation, then I agree, make the coal industry face the same level of environmental regulation that Exon Mobile deals with, and that minimal amount of regulation would put them out of business because they simply would not be able to compete with natural gas, much less wind.

 

[Helix]

That's the same nonsense that Hillary spouted when she proclaimed that she'd put coal miners out of business.
You can't train people in a whole region to learn something that you consider useful when there is no industry where they can apply it at.

Coal mining was more or less the only industry in that region and coal mining was also the industry that in turn supported other businesses (local grocery stores, cafes, bars, small businesses, restaurants, etc. etc. etc.).

How many electricians can a small town support?
How can somebody be hired when there is no industry around?

you understand what "public sector" means, right? it's either pay people to work or pay them not to. if there aren't enough private sector jobs to replace the coal industry when it goes, the public sector can and should step in.

 

[Moderate Right]

Are you wanting to debate or just sarcastically whine?

The point is, that coal is far and away the dirtiest form of energy we have. Coal mining is the most environmental destructive activity man has ever engaged in. Everything, including nuclear, hydro, natural gas, oil, geothermal, and of course wind and solar, is cleaner than coal from both a power generation standpoint, and certainly from a production standpoint. Even with the worst, worst case scenario with natural gas fracking, its still an order of magnitude cleaner than coal mining.

If coal mining companies faced the same level of environmental regulation in terms of mitigating environmental impacts that even oil company faced, they would out of business in the Eastern United States. So when you say minimal regulation, then I agree, make the coal industry face the same level of environmental regulation that Exon Mobile deals with, and that minimal amount of regulation would put them out of business because they simply would not be able to compete with natural gas, much less wind.

Ummmmmmmm. First you say that If coal mining companies faced the same level of environmental regulation in terms of mitigating environmental impacts that even oil company faced, they would out of business in the Eastern United States. But, I must point out that Exon Mobile and the others are still in business. What I said is that we should not purposely over regulate to the point of putting companies out of business and losing American jobs, which you seem to acknowledge is what would indeed happen if we forced coal to accept the same regulations as Exon has. I am against regulating to the point where companies go out of business and Americans lose jobs, good paying jobs at that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ummmmmmmm. First you say that If coal mining companies faced the same level of environmental regulation in terms of mitigating environmental impacts that even oil company faced, they would out of business in the Eastern United States. But, I must point out that Exon Mobile and the others are still in business. What I said is that we should not purposely over regulate to the point of putting companies out of business and losing American jobs, which you seem to acknowledge is what would indeed happen if we forced coal to accept the same regulations as Exon has. I am against regulating to the point where companies go out of business and Americans lose jobs, good paying jobs at that.

So let's say there was an industry where they burned tires for power generation. The people that worked at those tire burning plants made decent money. However, because they were burning tires for power generation, anyone else for dozens if not hundreds of miles around dealt with a constant onslaught of black acrid smoke and all the environmental and health impacts that went along with it.

Would you be against making those tire burning plants maintain the same pollution and environmental impact standards as an oil company? Even if it put those tire burning plants out of business?

I would imagine you would argue that even if there are jobs at those tire burning plants, they should be required to meet pollution and environmental impact standards of they need to be out of business. Well, it's the exact same situation with mountaintop removal coal mining. With the exception that their impacts to the environment are even greater and they last much, much longer.

There is not a prosperous society on earth that doesn't have strong environmental protections.

 

[bshin87]

Here is the thing about technology. Generally the more you invest in improving something, the better and cheaper it gets over time.

This is why not funding alternative energy because it was “inefficient” was a position only knuckledragging people could rationalize.

We are held hostage by the fossil fuel industry to remain latched to their tits for no reason other than $$$. Everything about getting off fossil fuels ASAP just ****ing makes sense. Imagine if the United States threw their weight behind alternative energy instead of fighting endless wars against wack a mole terrorist organizations that fund themselves with oil. Not only would it hurt our enemies, but we could be the world leader in an exploding economic industry.

The bloomberg's article below explains it in depth:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Moderate Right]

So let's say there was an industry where they burned tires for power generation. The people that worked at those tire burning plants made decent money. However, because they were burning tires for power generation, anyone else for dozens if not hundreds of miles around dealt with a constant onslaught of black acrid smoke and all the environmental and health impacts that went along with it.

Would you be against making those tire burning plants maintain the same pollution and environmental impact standards as an oil company? Even if it put those tire burning plants out of business?

I would imagine you would argue that even if there are jobs at those tire burning plants, they should be required to meet pollution and environmental impact standards of they need to be out of business. Well, it's the exact same situation with mountaintop removal coal mining. With the exception that their impacts to the environment are even greater and they last much, much longer.

There is not a prosperous society on earth that doesn't have strong environmental protections.

That plant should not have existed in the first place. Once it is in existence then we shouldn't regulate them to the point they go out of business. As a side note, Exon charges enough money for their products that with regulations and all they still make a profit and stay in business with no loss of employees. If the tire burning power plant can charge enough to their customers then adding regulations is OK. But, not to the point where their customers have to pay $1000 per month for electric service. As I said, this tire burning power plant should not be in existence in the first place or should have been regulated enough at start up. Once they are in business they shouldn't be screwed by regulations after the fact. I'm not really sure how these power plants work with their local governments because they are a monopoly of sorts. They don't face competition. So, if a city wanted to drive the tire burning power plant out of business then they would have some very dark days in their future.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Here is the thing about technology. Generally the more you invest in improving something, the better and cheaper it gets over time.

This is why not funding alternative energy because it was “inefficient” was a position only knuckledragging people could rationalize.

We are held hostage by the fossil fuel industry to remain latched to their tits for no reason other than $$$. Everything about getting off fossil fuels ASAP just ****ing makes sense. Imagine if the United States threw their weight behind alternative energy instead of fighting endless wars against wack a mole terrorist organizations that fund themselves with oil. Not only would it hurt our enemies, but we could be the world leader in an exploding economic industry.

The bloomberg's article below explains it in depth:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Yep. Opponents who only want to maintain the status quo because it's all they know are fighting change. We advance by always asking how we can make things better; energy production and distribution should not be exempt from that conversation. The valid concern is how the shift affects transportation, infrastructure, and the economy but those are things to figure out instead of railing against the idea of change.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

That plant should not have existed in the first place. Once it is in existence then we shouldn't regulate them to the point they go out of business. As a side note, Exon charges enough money for their products that with regulations and all they still make a profit and stay in business with no loss of employees. If the tire burning power plant can charge enough to their customers then adding regulations is OK. But, not to the point where their customers have to pay $1000 per month for electric service. As I said, this tire burning power plant should not be in existence in the first place or should have been regulated enough at start up. Once they are in business they shouldn't be screwed by regulations after the fact. I'm not really sure how these power plants work with their local governments because they are a monopoly of sorts. They don't face competition. So, if a city wanted to drive the tire burning power plant out of business then they would have some very dark days in their future.

I'm not really sure how these power plants work with their local governments

:roll:

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

[h=1]More bad news for coal: Wind and solar are getting cheaper[/h]Updated 8:51 AM ET, Mon March 25, 2019

This is a good thing. Clean renewable energy cheaper than dirty coal that gives miners cancer and pollutes the air. Can everyone agree this is a good thing?

It will be a good thing when it is cheap enough where we no longer have to subsidize it.

 

[austrianecon]

i agree. however, the public sector probably needs to step in and do something for Appalachia / coal country. they need to be trained and hired to do something that they can make a living on as we transition off of coal.

You mean like the epic fail of Kennedy's program Appalachian Regional Commission?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

You mean like the epic fail of Kennedy's program Appalachian Regional Commission?

I guess we could just let them die off?

 

[Fenton]

[h=1]More bad news for coal: Wind and solar are getting cheaper[/h]Updated 8:51 AM ET, Mon March 25, 2019

This is a good thing. Clean renewable energy cheaper than dirty coal that gives miners cancer and pollutes the air. Can everyone agree this is a good thing?

But it isn't cheaper nor is 100% renewable energy practical or feasible
The buy in for solar for residential applications is still cost prohibitive.
If it were cheaper consumers would jump at the chance to generate their own power. They're not.

Solar and wind are low density energy sources for obvious reasons. They are pointless without fossil fuel and or nuclear power sources backing them up.

For example Germany still relies heavily on coal and natural gas to meet their energy demand

I don't have an issue with getting away from fossil fuels, and think it's a good idea, and we could make serious progress and reduce our carbon footprint by relying on nuclear power.

The fact that that's not an option for the Occasio's of the world shows what their true intentions are, and it has nothing to do with fighting climate change.

 

[austrianecon]

I guess we could just let them die off?

I am from Appalachian region. It was created to end poverty in the area. 50 years and $10b later.. still as it was back then. I should also add these people survived a helluva alot longer then Uncle Sam's aid program.

 

[MTAtech]

It will be a good thing when it is cheap enough where we no longer have to subsidize it.

Good point. We subsidize solar and wind. But we also subsidize oil, gas and coal.

 

[MTAtech]

But it isn't cheaper nor is 100% renewable energy practical or feasible
The buy in for solar for residential applications is still cost prohibitive.
If it were cheaper consumers would jump at the chance to generate their own power. They're not.

Solar and wind are low density energy sources for obvious reasons. They are pointless without fossil fuel and or nuclear power sources backing them up.

For example Germany still relies heavily on coal and natural gas to meet their energy demand

I don't have an issue with getting away from fossil fuels, and think it's a good idea, and we could make serious progress and reduce our carbon footprint by relying on nuclear power.

The fact that that's not an option for the Occasio's of the world shows what their true intentions are, and it has nothing to do with fighting climate change.

Cost prohibitive? I did it -- twice. Even conservative poster here, chuckiechan, did it. I find it cost effective.

I think it is meaningful to get a significant amount of energy without burning something.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Good point. We subsidize solar and wind. But we also subsidize oil, gas and coal.

You forgot nuclear as well.

 

[ataraxia]

You guys can't even debate honestly without throwing up a pile of dung. I've said several times that we need government regulation but that it should not be used to purposely put people out of business. Are there any strip malls currently at Yosemite? If so, then I agree with you. If not, then your post is just a pile of dung.

The only reason there are no strip malls in Yosemite right now is because of big nasty government regulations. They are being used purposely to keep people out of business. If you take those away, do you really think the free market would keep them out?

 

[Moderate Right]

The only reason there are no strip malls in Yosemite right now is because of big nasty government regulations. They are being used purposely to keep people out of business. If you take those away, do you really think the free market would keep them out?

Do you have trouble with the English language? I have repeatedly said that government should not institute any new regulations designed purposely to put companies out of business that are already in business and put employees out of work or who are already working. There are no strip malls and it's employees on Yosemite. Therefore, you argument is nothing but a pile of dung.

 

[longview]

[h=1]More bad news for coal: Wind and solar are getting cheaper[/h]Updated 8:51 AM ET, Mon March 25, 2019

This is a good thing. Clean renewable energy cheaper than dirty coal that gives miners cancer and pollutes the air. Can everyone agree this is a good thing?

It is a good thing that the cost of goods sold prices of solar and wind electricity are dropping,
but it does not matter any, if that price drop is not reflected in the price consumers pay for that electricity.
Many of the current policies, require the utilities to pay (or give credit) for those solar and wind Kwh,
at the retail rate. This forces the utilities to increase fees to cover the added cost.
When Solar and wind are naturally cheaper than coal, at the consumer level, then people will buy all we can supply.

 

[ataraxia]

Do you have trouble with the English language? I have repeatedly said that government should not institute any new regulations designed purposely to put companies out of business that are already in business and put employees out of work or who are already working. There are no strip malls and it's employees on Yosemite. Therefore, you argument is nothing but a pile of dung.

But you seem to be admitting that government regulations can sometimes be helpful in situations where the free market alone may not lead to the best outcomes . If government regulations can curtail some harmful current technologies , and help people who are already employed transition to safer, more modern technologies, in a way that the free market alone can not, would you still be against it?

 

[Moderate Right]

But you seem to be admitting that government regulations can sometimes be helpful in situations where the free market alone may not lead to the best outcomes . If government regulations can curtail some harmful current technologies , and help people who are already employed transition to safer, more modern technologies, in a way that the free market alone can not, would you still be against it?

I didn't admit that at all. First, I never said I was against government regulations. But, that doesn't mean I am for more government regulations. I am actually for less government regulations. Now, if you want to provide incentives to clean energy and let the market phase out dirty energy, I'm not against that. Take coal country, for example. If you want to give tax or other incentives to help clean energy get started in coal country then do it and the market will phase out coal. And we can transition American jobs in coal over to American jobs at wind mills. That's my point. Don't purposely regulate coal companies in Kentucky or West Virginia out of business and the jobs that go with it and then give me some BS that there are an equal number of wind farm jobs opening up in California. Open up the jobs in Kentucky and West Virginia as the coal jobs are phased out.

 

[ataraxia]

I didn't admit that at all. First, I never said I was against government regulations. But, that doesn't mean I am for more government regulations. I am actually for less government regulations. Now, if you want to provide incentives to clean energy and let the market phase out dirty energy, I'm not against that. Take coal country, for example. If you want to give tax or other incentives to help clean energy get started in coal country then do it and the market will phase out coal.

Government regulations are like the brakes on your car. You can't be for more brakes, or less brakes. There are just times when you need them, and times when you don't, and times when it's just dangerous to use them. You need judgment and careful evaluation to do all that, not just mindless slogans like "I am for less brakes!".

And we can transition American jobs in coal over to American jobs at wind mills. That's my point. Don't purposely regulate coal companies in Kentucky or West Virginia out of business and the jobs that go with it and then give me some BS that there are an equal number of wind farm jobs opening up in California. Open up the jobs in Kentucky and West Virginia as the coal jobs are phased out.

But what Trump promised was to PROTECT these coal miners from the new technology. His administration has launched a slew of anti-climate and pro-fossil-fuel policies. That's big government interfering with the free market. Are you really OK with this?

 

[longview]

But you seem to be admitting that government regulations can sometimes be helpful in situations where the free market alone may not lead to the best outcomes . If government regulations can curtail some harmful current technologies , and help people who are already employed transition to safer, more modern technologies, in a way that the free market alone can not, would you still be against it?

The problem is that state and local regulations are harming the emerging technologies like solar and wind.
If we really want solar to succeed, then the Kwh purchased or credited cannot cause the cost of goods sold of electricity to increase.