4 ms·

> I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama killed coal. Cratering natural gas prices are what killed coal. So short of artificially raising the price of nat gas,

> I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama killed coal. Cratering natural gas prices are what killed coal. So short of artificially raising the price of nat gas, coal is not coming back regardless of who is in charge. What the Coal industry wants is even more federal handouts. We already give them a ton of money to keep going on the grouds that it's a transition economy and a bridge for the US economy. But the Coal Industry is really damn greedy as a whole. Even with high profile failures like Solyndra, in general green energy runs at a fraction of the cost. This of course hurts workers, because the labor involved is less well compensated as part of that cost reduction. However, as far as I can tell we're already turning the corner to where (for _generation_, ignoring environmental costs), solar and wind already outperform coal on a cost basis. People who want to preserve bulk coal generation do so for ideological reasons. From a more "green" perspective, there are more important things we should be doing with our coal and natural gas then burning them to heat water.

maxerickson 10y ago
So that's an actionable step that can be taken. Fund the build out of solar production without worrying too much about profits. Not at a loss, just choose to fund factories that will build solar panels as an investment in the future rather than from a portfolio of competitive investments as an attempt to maximize profit.
giardini 10y ago
jrcii posted this an hour ago and (s)he was, for some reason, downvoted until it was [dead]. But I think it's a relevant and newsworthy article: "Killing Coal: The Obama Administration’s Intentional Assault on an Industry" http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/killing-coal-the-obama-administrations-intentional-assault-on-an-industry/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/killing-c... Please don't kill information simply b/c you disagree with it; otherwise there can no dialogue and ycombinator becomes little more than a billboard for the current dominant political whim.
- khuey 10y ago
  It got killed because breitbart.com is not a real news source.
  - giardini 10y ago
    Is slate.com then a "real news source"? Is news.ycombinator.com a "real news source"? Should it be renamed to "notnews.ycombinator.com" or such? Who decides what is and isn't a "real news source"? Perhaps the judgement: "breitbart.com is not a real news source." is an example why so many people were astonished at the election results. After all, if you only talk to people who agree with you then you'll certainly be unaware of those who don't. And when there's a vote, you'll really be surprised!
    - grzm 10y ago
      I've seen this "is not a real news source" on both sides. From the right it's often cast as MSM or liberal media bias. This attitude is destructive as it's making it so difficult for us to come to any agreement on what we accept as a trustworthy third-party. Where do we start to give people some benefit of the doubt? As it is, even "trust but verify" can appear impossible. I'm not advocating some "can't we all be friends" platitude. As a practical matter, how do we move forward from here? Edit: minor wording changes to remove generalization and grammar improvement
    - sesqu 10y ago
      > Is slate.com then a "real news source"? Slate.com does not describe themselves as a news source, so apparently not. I've certainly never thought of them as informative. I can't personally comment on Breitbart's content, but apparently a number of their employees quit earlier this year, believing that the site has lost its journalistic integrity since the death of Andrew Breitbart.
      - giardini 10y ago
        Your post got me searching: I found a Washington Post article with a nice analysis and a left-right scale of common news sources. Both slate and breitbart are outliers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/le... Time to update my news reading preferences!

maxerickson 10y ago

So that's an actionable step that can be taken. Fund the build out of solar production without worrying too much about profits. Not at a loss, just choose to fund factories that will build solar panels as an investment in the future rather than from a portfolio of competitive investments as an attempt to maximize profit.

giardini 10y ago

jrcii posted this an hour ago and (s)he was, for some reason, downvoted until it was [dead]. But I think it's a relevant and newsworthy article: "Killing Coal: The Obama Administration’s Intentional Assault on an Industry" http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/killing-coal-the-obama-administrations-intentional-assault-on-an-industry/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/killing-c... Please don't kill information simply b/c you disagree with it; otherwise there can no dialogue and ycombinator becomes little more than a billboard for the current dominant political whim.

khuey 10y ago
It got killed because breitbart.com is not a real news source.
- giardini 10y ago
  Is slate.com then a "real news source"? Is news.ycombinator.com a "real news source"? Should it be renamed to "notnews.ycombinator.com" or such? Who decides what is and isn't a "real news source"? Perhaps the judgement: "breitbart.com is not a real news source." is an example why so many people were astonished at the election results. After all, if you only talk to people who agree with you then you'll certainly be unaware of those who don't. And when there's a vote, you'll really be surprised!
  - grzm 10y ago
    I've seen this "is not a real news source" on both sides. From the right it's often cast as MSM or liberal media bias. This attitude is destructive as it's making it so difficult for us to come to any agreement on what we accept as a trustworthy third-party. Where do we start to give people some benefit of the doubt? As it is, even "trust but verify" can appear impossible. I'm not advocating some "can't we all be friends" platitude. As a practical matter, how do we move forward from here? Edit: minor wording changes to remove generalization and grammar improvement
  - sesqu 10y ago
    > Is slate.com then a "real news source"? Slate.com does not describe themselves as a news source, so apparently not. I've certainly never thought of them as informative. I can't personally comment on Breitbart's content, but apparently a number of their employees quit earlier this year, believing that the site has lost its journalistic integrity since the death of Andrew Breitbart.
    - giardini 10y ago
      Your post got me searching: I found a Washington Post article with a nice analysis and a left-right scale of common news sources. Both slate and breitbart are outliers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/le... Time to update my news reading preferences!