.

As predicted by me for many years.

1. Earth isn't warming lol libruls
2. Earth is warming, but it's not man, lol libruls
3. Yeah it's real but we can't do anything about it
4. Welp too late now, but we're all almost dead - so have fun with that

Lol epic self-ownage.

Your logical fallacy is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

New record low price for solar farm.

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/deta...#axzz4Li0SIIdI

A little flashback from when this thread started 15 months ago:

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/10...ts-record-low/

I just throw them on the sidewalk. That way they get back to nature more quickly. None of this delay passing through a landfill.

Congratulations, I spent the last 6 years working in a Facility that produces ~100k barrels of crude a day. Hope the 200,000,000+ barrels I helped be produced doesn't offset your close to 1000 solar installs.

I'll be happy to retrain you when renewables put you out of work.

Shifty working for the fossil fuel industry has to be the least surprising reveal ever.

What a strange brag. "You own a solar company? Lol well guess what loser, I'm an unskilled worker and my 200M barrels are ruining our future much more than your puny 1k solar cells are improving it, so hah! The future can lick my bawwwls!"

Unskilled? You have no clue what your talking about. There is no future without oil. Want to explain to me why life has been improving the more oil (fossils fuels) we use?

Lol not in our lifetime. I have worked in a nuclear plant and a hydro dame before but they won't be replacing oil anytime soon.

What kind of facility produces 100mbpd of crude?

100,000

Ok, I made a bad read, so your brag is slightly less weird (and to be clear, I wasn't knocking unskilled laborers). Regardless of your position, your brag of "I'm more destructive than you are beneficial!" is so weird it sounds like you're trolling. This furthers my theory that you're trolling.

Hey been meaning to ask what your thoughts are (if you have any) on Florida's Amendment 1

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Sola...ndment_1_(2016)

I was all set to vote in favor but someone told me that it actually kills solar for reasons and I have nfi

I'm not from Florida and haven't heard of it, so this is just based on a few minutes research. But...

vote NO

"Consumers for Smart Solar" is a misleading name. It's funded by the utilities and outside anti-environmental groups including the Koch brothers.

The thing this bill apparently is going to kill is net metering. That's a common target for anti-solar legislation. Net metering is really crucial for solar. It allows a customer to get credit for the extra energy they produce. You get credit during the day when you produce more than you use and use that up at night (or w/e, but that's the general picture). It also seems to make it possible for the utilities to charge much higher rates for what they do sell to people who install solar. Also it seems to make some financing arrangements difficult where you buy the power from the solar equipment from a third party.

Sierra Club says: NO
Solar Energy Industries Association says: NO

thanks

Any guesses if the geothermal federal credit is going to get extended at the end of this year?

Probably depends who wins the presidency. I think it's unlikely that tax extenders for anything get done this year.

In-depth discussion of the Washington State ballot initiative on a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Of course the left hates it, because climate change is the most important problem in the world, but also can only be solved in a way that involves bigger government.

Possibly slow pony:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12737979

Driving on electricity cheaper than gas in all fifty states

I was reading Dan Arielys book Predictably Irrational. He stated therein that based in his experiments hes wary of things like a carbon tax or trading. He states that it has a strong liklihood of taking pollution out if the social.realm (polluting is bad and we should try to do less) to a value free cost/benefit analysis. If interested i can quote the book when i get home.

I think limits and bans have been and will be way more effective. Ban lead paint, lead in gas, ddt, dioxins, cfcs, CAFE standards, smog testing, etc.

It's an interesting idea, but it seems strained to apply it to carbon pricing. 95+% of the population is completely indifferent to their carbon emissions. Like, do you know anyone who has ever in their life decided not to take a road trip because of carbon concerns?