Leaderboard

I have no idea how coal's bottom ash would act as a "soil betterment". Should that actually work, it would be used for that purpose here in the USA. Bottom ash contains anything that doesn't burn, including heavy metal compounds and other toxins. Growing crops in fly ash, even with unacceptable levels of carbon, would result in VERY firm, cement-like soil. The boiler operator's intention is to achieve complete combustion of carbon (and other hydrocarbons) in the fuel. Throwing away unburned carbon (fuel) is a detriment to efficient operation. Bottom ash consists primarily of silica, alumina, and iron oxides, along with smaller amounts of calcium, magnesium, sulfates, and other compounds. These are highly dependent on the coal used, and its treatments. Not much fertilization "stuff" there.

"Help"? That is a broad term, perhaps help in terms of regulatory rulings on self-drive, but scrapping the tax incentives, which will hurt.

It appears that Tesla will benefit from some regulatory changes being brought in by the new administration. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Trump-Administration-to-Fast-Track-Self-Driving-Car-Regulations.html "...Trump officials told advisors they're planning to construct a federal framework for fully self-driving vehicles as one of the Transportation Department's top priorities. The media outlet cited sources that were familiar with the plans. "This would be a huge step forward in easing US rules for self-driving cars and be a significant tailwind for Tesla's autonomous and AI vision heading into 2025," said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, who was quoted by Market Watch. Ives added, "Musk's significant influence in the Trump White House is already having a major influence and ultimately the golden path for Tesla around Cybercabs and autonomous is now within reach with an emboldened Trump/Musk strategic alliance playing out in real-time and very in line with our thesis." "

All the more reason to rely on a transition to natural gas in developing nations.

No, one year is not enough.

There was no one "bought", just an acceptance of policy matters. EVs will be badly hurt by the reduction of government support. Fossil fuel cars will be helped by the removal of tax disincentives.

No, we examined this earlier. Atmospheric reductions make no discernible change to health outcomes, whereas reduction in indoor pollution does make a major change.

I told you guys Musk bought Trump. Some mentally weak people here thought a Trump victory would spell the end to green energy and EVs.

Wrong. There is clear correlation between outdoor air pollution levels and rates of hospital admissions for cardio-respiratory problems. I agree natural gas is better, but that means you accept the other fuel forms are worse. Coal pollution will continue to decline as its usage is eliminated.

Tesla up again today. 99.8% gain in last 6 months. 46.9% gain over last year. Compare that to WTI Down 0.8% over last year. What is better +46.9% or -0.8%?

Coal pollution has drastically reduced since 1985. The health reports indicate that atmospheric pollutants do not have the negative health effects of indoor sources of energy, and the transition for indoor fuels to the use of natural gas should represent a relatively safe and reliable option. For Africa and other nations still using dung for indoor energy resources, this could be the deal maker, and we could see a massive reduction in negative health impacts going forward.

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html “It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote." These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.

Agreed, I'm glad you are accepting that solid and liquid fuels (e.g. wood, coal, heating oil) produce more pollution than natural gas. That is progress! You used to make silly claims that coal was non-polluting.

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html “It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote." These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.