Posted on 09/22/2016 5:37:44 PM PDT by Innovative
And UMW still endorsed Hillary.
On the one hand, the NYT loves electric cars.
On the other hand, the NYT criticizes Trump for seeking more fuel for power plants which generate electricity.
Stupid NYT. Think everything is static, a zero-sum game.
Actually, they want everything to be static, because that leads to helplessness and discontent, which leads to unrest, which creates lots of story possibilities for the scribblers of the NYT.
More energy production will decrease the cost of energy, which will lead to the growth of the economy. In a growing economy people spend less time naval gazing and looking for a handout; such people have little need for the NYT.
The NYT belongs to an intellectual movement that believes that inexpensive energy is among the worst things that can happen to the world.
I’m Coral Davenport, and I’m stupid.
That’s why I write for the NY Slimes.
Excellent! This will provide cheap energy, which helps the economy.
...
Caution!
That is advanced physics and thermodynamics that liberals cannot grasp. They just plug in their Chevy volt at night...there is nothing beyond their outlet.
Most labor leaders are nothing more than lap dogs for the Democrat Party, and their members know it. These guys routinely sell their members down the river by supporting big-government globalists who embrace every "free trade" deal that comes their way.
Obama promised both times to shut down the mines. Still, the miners’ unions voted for him.
There’s something to be said for that theory, since coal and natural gas DO compete for the same customers. However, what the author doesn’t recognize is that many utilities have different power plants on their grid that use different types of fuel, depending on fuel prices, export markets, etc. And coal is used for steel production, while gas is not.
Full Speech: Donald Trump Rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (9/22/2016) Trump Live Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxk3-k8tAIc
The two fuels compete for a world market - not just an American market.
Apparently the NYT consulted the world’s dumbest man (Paul Krugman) for this article-— to the NYT— google the word “exports”
my son works in the gas fields of SW Pa and WV, one of the few still working, told me everything is on hold pending the election
There is little to be said for the theory other than the base premise is wrong. The assumption is that the electrical requirements are met either with coal or with gas. Both can flourish and have flourished together. What is hilarious is the NYT probably hates both, yet gets almost all their power from both. Wait, their power comes from that little rectangle on the wall so there is no harm to the planet. sarc
Stupid NYT. Think everything is static, a zero-sum game.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My exact thought as soon as I read their dumass analogy.
[And UMW still endorsed Hillary.]
They can have fun on the welfare rolls then.
Per BTU, coal is generally a cheaper source of energy than gas. On the other hand, gas provides feed for chemical plants. There does not have to be a conflict and historically, there was not. The problem with coal is the environmental restrictions, enacted by edict.
Another problem with coal is that cheap gas has probably done more to erode the use of coal than any environmental regulations did.
The flip side of that, though, is that many areas of the Northeastern U.S. are facing gas pipeline capacity constraints, and Democratic politicians all over the place are putting the brakes on new pipelines.
An absurd, zero-sum editorial.
These people couldn’t understand economics on the second try...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.