Indiana town learns elections have consequences

The superiority of wind and solar over natural gas is manifold.

First, wind and solar don't generate carbon emissions, while natural gas, when burned to produce electricity, does. But let's say you're a climate change denier fool.

Natural gas has to be transported from the extraction site and stored. This requires more infrastructure, as Boiler puts it, than just the extraction facilities "natural gas plants." Solar and wind generated power--you can just plug it into the grid. No transportation or storage needed.

There are only so many natural gas deposits, and just like oil wells, they do run out. We have millions of acres of unused (and largely unusable) land where the wind blows and the sun shines ..and it always will.

The overwhelming majority of green energy jobs are in red rural areas and bring in tons of much needed money.   Farmers get 10k/year in royalties just for hosting a windmill on their unprofitable soybean field.

Arguing about its effecitveness is no longer an argument.    We currently get over 20% of our grid from green energy.  You can find posts on this forum 10 years ago where our MAGA intellectuals said that was not possible.

China currently  makes enough wind/solar to power almost all of the UNited States.    So the dipshits (many on this board) who always argued green power wasnt effective because the sun doesnt always shine....and the wind doesnt always blow....or whatever other intellectual nuggets of stupidity they had to offer have since been proven wrong.

Its now just a matter of spite.   Republicans kill green jobs because Democrats sponcered them.       But those jobs are in Republican districts.    So their spite is only hurting their own people.   Kinda like cuts to Medicaid.

Yeah, an interesting thing about green energy is that it's installed on otherwise useless land. That's the definition of rural red states carved out of the prairie. With their climate and terrain, they're only suitable for growing grass and livestock. A large part of the problem is their elevation, which makes the growing season shorter and the weather harsher. 

So, millions of acres of empty, unproductive land inhabited only by idiots and the occasional cow. What could be a better place for wind and solar? We were ideally positioned for it all the time. And yeah, farmers whose land is used get subsidies. The cows don't care if there's a big windmill in their pasture. Everybody wins.

Gas electricity is cheap, and wind and solar electricity is expensive.  Produce electricity with gas.  Why is this confusing?

Not confusing at all. The truth is the exact opposite of what you said. Solar and wind are cheaper, even if you ignore environmental considerations. And unlike natural gas, we'll never run out of sun and wind.

You should look up the cost of each method of electricity generation and then come back here and lie about it. Bring us some "statistics."😂😂😂😂😂

I'm not confused by what you're saying. Do we build gas plants or not? Do you include the cost of building them in the price of energy or not?

Pretty simple to answer, can you do it?

The process of evaluation should involve depreciation and amortization calculations. Natural gas plants should count the estimated volume of natural gas that can be accessed as an asset and the depletion of that asset should be recorded as a cost--just as an oil well should.

Solar and wind power don't involve depletion of an asset. Gas, solar, and wind all involve the cost of building facilities and the depreciation of those hard assets. Solar and wind require MUCH less infrastructure per kwh than gas plants. Therefore, both initial cost and depreciation are lower. Operating costs are lower as well.

In a nutshell, purely from an economic standpoint, renewable energy kicks fossil fuel's ass. The cost per kwh generated, no matter how you calculate it, is lower.