Supreme Court kicks greens in the nut sack!!!

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Aug 6, 2009
37,962
6,380
1,140
Not the middle of nowhere
As we all well know by now, progressive activist environmental nuts like we have in this forum with the AGW climate crusaders never do factor in that "costs" are a critical factor in any public policy discussion.

Thankfully for the rest of us, the Supreme Court recognized this week that costs do matter..........and groin kicked the EPA >>>

Supreme Court decision could resurrect coal plants WashingtonExaminer.com

And I couldn't be laughing any harder.

:up::up:BIG COAL IS BACK IN THE GOOD OLD USA:up::up:




[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/corp_sample.jpg.html][/URL]
 
In the heyday of big coal I made a ton of money in trading, Peabody, Patriot, Alpha and Consol. It was like taking candy from a baby
 
Poor Skook. He's been losing so badly and so consistently, he really had to scrape the bottom to find some kind of "win" here.

Nothing was struck down. The mercury emissions rules are still in place. The SC could have struck the rules down. They didn't. The SC basically just sent it back to the DC circuit court, and said cost estimates have to come earlier in the process.

Skook, did your cult not tell you that? Weep, skook, weep. I relish the savory bitterness of the tears of kook losers.
 
As the cost of wind and solar continue to decline, and the cost of coal continue to increase, the decision becomes irrelevant in any case. And grid scale batteries are already being produced and emplaced. As there numbers increase, coal becomes less attractive, to the point of shutting down plants with more than 1/2 life left in them. And then simply shuttering all that are left.
 
6a00d834520b4b69e2017d3f4022ef970c-pi
 
I find it fascinating...........these progressives who are the big AGW fantasyland dwellers.............public humiliation doesn't matter. The mofus are so severely brainwashed OCD that to them, one off opinions > facts.:2up::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:

To anybody of sound mind........the graphs and figures above mean, coal and oil are going to DOMINATE the energy landscape for decades. Well...........according to the Obama government. Perhaps they are lying?:boobies::boobies:

So if that means me and my skeptic pals are losing..............hey............what can I say?:coffee:
 
Last edited:
Ray.....at the end of the day, virtually everything is an opinion. You just dont believe in absolute truths........I do!!!

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...bon-but-not-so-renewable/comment-page-2/?_r=0


Costs will always define and set energy policy. THATS where the "opinions" come from.:up: That's where they always have come from and where they always will come from.

The big banks and not science, will control energy.............always.
 
Exactly what I said. Costs will define the future of energy generation. And right now, wind and solar are cheaper than coal, and continuing to decrease in price.
 
"Opinions are like assholes..................."


On the other hand............:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface:...........................

























Your graph is phony. The Institute of Energy Research is an industry front group.

You may have seen those ads with the lady in the black suit telling us how good fracking is for us. Those are funded by the IER.

Right now in 2015 renewables are a larger part of our total generated energy than your graph says we will attain in 2040.

If we had the will to do so we could replace coal this year. Especially in the sunny West.
 
r
"Opinions are like assholes..................."


On the other hand............:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface:...........................

























Your graph is phony. The Institute of Energy Research is an industry front group.

You may have seen those ads with the lady in the black suit telling us how good fracking is for us. Those are funded by the IER.

Right now in 2015 renewables are a larger part of our total generated energy than your graph says we will attain in 2040.

If we had the will to do so we could replace coal this year. Especially in the sunny West.



fAiL s0n.........typical progressive fabrication. The EIR graph mirrors the Obama EIA graph!!! LMAO.....what a fraud s0n!!!


Who's not winning??:2up::oops-28:
 
Last edited:
"Opinions are like assholes..................."


On the other hand............:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface:...........................

























Your graph is phony. The Institute of Energy Research is an industry front group.

You may have seen those ads with the lady in the black suit telling us how good fracking is for us. Those are funded by the IER.

Right now in 2015 renewables are a larger part of our total generated energy than your graph says we will attain in 2040.

If we had the will to do so we could replace coal this year. Especially in the sunny West.



fAiL s0n.........typical progressive fabrication. The EIR graph mirros the Obama EIA graph!!!


Who's not winning??:2up::oops-28:


So you support coal that has mercury all around us? Do you realize that it is a deadly poison?
 
Last edited:
4 years after GOOGLE went big into renewable investments ( starting in 2007 ), they punted. Couldn't get away fast enough.

Because they saw the RENIXX market trends on renewables!!!

Why Google Stopped Trying To Make Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal - Forbes

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh.gif.html][/URL]



It will be decades before coals dominance is rivaled by solar or wind. But don't take my word for it..........go google solar vs coal. Who is saying coal is a dinosaur and solar has taken over? ALL of the k00k green websites ( LOL......go check it out.....even one called TREEHUGGER ) :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:



Then go check Business Insider, Forbes, Wall Street Journal etc......and see what they are saying about renewables vs coal for current and future investment.:up:
 

Forum List

Back
Top