From Newsgroup: talk.origins

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081814.htm

Materials and batteries have become cheap enough so that solar power can
now be cheaper to produce than burning coal, but you need to live in a
sunny climate.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

RonO wrote:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081814.htm

Materials and batteries have become cheap enough so that solar power can
now be cheaper to produce than burning coal

That's idiocy. It's not just wrong it's idiocy.

Besides the fact that the coast of coal is ARTIFICIALLY HIGH, solar
is only as useful as it is BECAUSE OF the fossil fuel/nuclear grid.

It's the only thing keeping solar viable.

Here in America, you sell your excess solar power to the grid AND
THEY HAVE TO BUY IT. This overly complicated the utility companies.
They need to account for a highly unreliable/variable energy
source. THEN, when the sun isn't shining -- like during cloudy
days, winter when the says are shorter or, oh, I dunno, maybe night
time -- the solar user gets their energy from the grid!

Coal is out of the question here, btw. Even natural gas, which is
the single most "Clean" fuel we have, if you dropped the price to
"Absolutely Free" the absolute lowest utility bills can drop is
33%. BECAUSE the cost is artificially high with "Transmission fees."
Coal is even worse with "Carbon" taxes, auctions, trading & credits
targeting it worst of all.

Fact is, coal is the single cheapest energy source, and the energy
source of choice for India and China.

China uses more coal than the entire rest of the planet combined.
Do you think they hate money? Is that it? China can't stand money
so they burn obscene amounts of coal?

No, you idiot! It's cheap! It's reliable! And they don't artificially
raise the cost on themselves!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 21:08:10 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081814.htm

Materials and batteries have become cheap enough so that solar power can
now be cheaper to produce than burning coal

That's idiocy. It's not just wrong it's idiocy.

Besides the fact that the coast of coal is ARTIFICIALLY HIGH, solar
is only as useful as it is BECAUSE OF the fossil fuel/nuclear grid.

It's the only thing keeping solar viable.

Here in America, you sell your excess solar power to the grid AND
THEY HAVE TO BUY IT. This overly complicated the utility companies.
They need to account for a highly unreliable/variable energy
source. THEN, when the sun isn't shining -- like during cloudy
days, winter when the says are shorter or, oh, I dunno, maybe night
time -- the solar user gets their energy from the grid!

Coal is out of the question here, btw. Even natural gas, which is
the single most "Clean" fuel we have, if you dropped the price to
"Absolutely Free" the absolute lowest utility bills can drop is
33%. BECAUSE the cost is artificially high with "Transmission fees."
Coal is even worse with "Carbon" taxes, auctions, trading & credits
targeting it worst of all.

Fact is, coal is the single cheapest energy source, and the energy
source of choice for India and China.

China uses more coal than the entire rest of the planet combined.
Do you think they hate money? Is that it? China can't stand money
so they burn obscene amounts of coal?

No, you idiot! It's cheap! It's reliable! And they don't artificially
raise the cost on themselves!

That's right. Anything is cheap when other people pay for it. Coal
is cheap for China because its actual costs are borne by individual
Chinese and distributed across the rest of the world. All hail
Gwobull Warbling!
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 10/7/25 11:47 PM, jillery wrote:

That's right. Anything is cheap when other people pay for it. Coal
is cheap for China because its actual costs are borne by individual
Chinese and distributed across the rest of the world.

Coal is cheap, seriously cheap because it's a ready made fuel. You
can pretty much just dig it out of the ground & burn it, though
there's usually some processing involved.

You don't want really huge chunks, and I believe they like to
clean it so you don't choke up the furnaces too badly...

Probably the single biggest cost of coal is in transporting it to
where ever it's being burned.

It's incredibly cheap, coal. The PRICE is artificially here, here
in the west, but the cost if extremely low.

We also have more energy in coal than the #1 and #2 countries with
the largest "Proven" oil reserves. This is even true if we accept
the lie that they have those oil reserves, which they don't.

Venezuela, Canada... those huge "Proven reserves" numbers are
bitumen, tar. It has a significantly higher energy/cost overhead
than coal, oil or natural gas, so it can never be a one-to-one
conversion.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 10/7/25 6:08 PM, JTEM wrote:

-aRonO wrote:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081814.htm

Materials and batteries have become cheap enough so that solar power
can now be cheaper to produce than burning coal

That's idiocy. It's not just wrong it's idiocy.

Besides the fact that the coast of coal is ARTIFICIALLY HIGH, solar
is only as useful as it is BECAUSE OF the fossil fuel/nuclear grid.

The price of coal is artificially low, due to the costs of the pollution
that burning coal creates. The GDP of the United States would be higher
if we paid coal miners *not* to make coal available.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 10/11/25 12:34 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

The price of coal is artificially low,

Exactly the opposite. It's artificially HIGH.

due to the costs of the pollution

Now you're making shit up.

You can play that stupid, bed wetter's game of "Eew! Eew!
The cost to the environment & human health" on literally
everything. Everything.

A bottle of aspirin? Enormous overhead in energy, water... the
plastic for the bottle... shipping it to the store... disposal...

dry yourself off, get some adult adult pull-ups and STOP pissing
yourself every time the media orders you to!

For Christ's sake, grow the fuck up!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:21:57 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/7/25 11:47 PM, jillery wrote:

That's right. Anything is cheap when other people pay for it. Coal
is cheap for China because its actual costs are borne by individual
Chinese and distributed across the rest of the world.

<restored>

All hail Gwobull Warbling!

I commend you for no longer using that nonsense phrase, although your
comments below still ignore the impact to global warming from using
fossil fuels of all kinds.

Coal is cheap, seriously cheap because it's a ready made fuel. You
can pretty much just dig it out of the ground & burn it, though
there's usually some processing involved.

You don't want really huge chunks, and I believe they like to
clean it so you don't choke up the furnaces too badly...

You misunderstand. The phrase "clean coal" doesn't refer to the coal
itself, but instead refers to the several processes used to remove the polluting soot and fumes from the exhaust gases, up to and including
carbon capture and storage, all which add significantly to the cost of
using coal: <https://www.greenmatters.com/politics-and-policy/is-there-such-thing-as-clean-coal>

Probably the single biggest cost of coal is in transporting it to
where ever it's being burned.

It's incredibly cheap, coal. The PRICE is artificially here, here
in the west, but the cost if extremely low.

We also have more energy in coal than the #1 and #2 countries with
the largest "Proven" oil reserves. This is even true if we accept
the lie that they have those oil reserves, which they don't.

Venezuela, Canada... those huge "Proven reserves" numbers are
bitumen, tar. It has a significantly higher energy/cost overhead
than coal, oil or natural gas, so it can never be a one-to-one
conversion.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 10/11/25 6:36 PM, jillery wrote:

I commend you for no longer using that nonsense phrase, although your comments below still ignore the impact to global warming from using
fossil fuels of all kinds.

Gwobull Warbling is a myth. The Holocene is not unnaturally warm.

In fact, if you knew ANYTHING, if you weren't a faker you might
even grasp how you can't compare the Holocene to itself then
declare that it doesn't match!

Get it? Even just a little?

AND THEN there's the fact that nobody ever explained to you WHY
getting warmer would be bad!

Were you "Thinking" that the climate could or should be stagnant?

Are you THAT stupid?

So if it's NOT stagnant and it's NOT getting warmer then... what?
What's supposed to happen to the climate and HOW THE FUCK could
you be so stupid that you'd mistaken this for good?

THE BEST THING humanity could ever do is terraform the earth in
such a way that ends the present ice age. And doing that would
mean... what? What would it mean? Go on; guess!

Need a hint? It would make the earth WARMER!

And NOT terraforming the earth to end the present ice age? Well,
it means the glaciers will return... sooner rather than later.

In fact, WE'RE ALREADY OVERDUE! We were overdue even during
Roman times!

Most interglacials -- warm periods -- only lasted about 10k years,
ours is pushing 12k by popular dating, and more like 15K when we
factor out the Younger Dryas cooling!

WE'RE OVERDUE!

And a return of the glaciers means BILLIONS DIE!

The United States is responsible for more food aid than the entire
rest of the planet combined! What happens when we drop to near
zero, and Canada is zero?

You haven't even thought about what you're advocating. You're
THAT gullible, THAT susceptible to propaganda!

When did your Gwobull Warbling start? What were CO2 emissions at
that time? Hmm?

BY YOUR OWN IDIOTIC NARRATIVE, we can slaughter every last man,
woman & child outside of China and humanity would STILL be
producing well over 10x the emissions that your fairy tale tells
us got Geobull Warbling started in the first place!

What "Solution" can change ANY of this?

Your precious Gwobull Warbling narrative isn't even internally
consistent!. You worship "Solutions" that can't map to you
imaginary problem, and attack anyone who questions the dogma.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 22:42:12 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Gwobull Warbling is a myth. The Holocene is not unnaturally warm.

All hail Gwobull Warbling!
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2