Trust me, I'm not holding my breath. The insurance companies here make too much money to just let that cash cow wander out to pasture.

As was OPs.

This is a good thing. It would be awesome if coal wasn't growing, but "growing more slowly" is good thing.

Yup. So far. The world still needs power, that isn't going to change. All we can do is continue to push for sources that are more conducive to our continued habitation of this planet.

Agreed. It's an abomination. Single Payer is the only solution.

I thought you were leaving. Why are you still here?

It's 52% and declining. What's your point?

I've been in one of these plants before. Coal to NatGas. The one I was at also produces a shitload of fertilizer (Anhydrous Ammonia), liquid CO2 for injecting into tar-sands for extracting oil, and other random products. Cool process, but it stunk to high hell.

Second year in a row they were obliterated! A job so nice he did it twice?

Lol. Troll harder, troll.

Indeed.

And nothing of value will be lost.

Words words words. It's all bluster. Bravado. Bloviating. I don't think they'd be stupid enough to follow through. That's my opinion, you disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

Which is the basis for this entire mental masturbation exercise: We fundamentally disagree on Iran's willingness to use their hypothetical nuclear weapons offensively, or as a defense against a conventional attack. I don't think they would. You do. Those are both personal opinions, neither of which are objectively provable.

What? How do you get "I know what I said is meaningless" out of that comment? I said no such thing. A nuclear weapon would be useless to Iran. Reason: My BELIEF that Iran would be unwilling to follow through on their "fuck it, burn the whole thing to the ground" bluster. They have plenty of use for the US. Reason: The threat of MAD. Hence the "objective value for one situation, not the other." Again, that analysis is based on our fundamental disagreement on the assessment of the different parties' willingness to use them.

Whatever though, man. I've spent enough mental energy on this one, and I don't see us getting to a shared understanding. Cheers.

All valid points. And believe me, I'm all onboard with solar. I genuinely wish I could install them on my house, but my roof/yard just aren't viable.

The counter-argument I have is that you still need baseload. I don't think we're even approaching a point where we can start talking 100% renewables 100% of the time. The industrial base is going to drive most of that delay. Things like aluminum smelting require absolutely massive amounts of 24/7 power. Of course you COULD do that with solar/storage, but it would be inordinately expensive. And you'd have a hard time convincing a plant manager that the risk of "freezing" his entire operation is worth it.

This is purely my opinion: Even if we install leadership that doesn't have their head up their ass when it comes to power generation, I don't believe I will live to see the day where the last "traditional" baseload plant ceases operation. I hope we're well on our way by that time, I just don't see it happening.

I didn't intend my statement to imply nuclear was the end-all be-all for future power needs, in place of renewables. That's not my position at all. I think nuclear is a viable component. That's what I meant by the "grounded in reality" comment.

We should be researching smaller modular reactors. We should be working on making larger scale nuclear cheaper. We should be doing that in addition to building out renewables as fast as we can. And we absolutely shouldn't be back-tracking into more fossil fuel use.

I'm aware. The root of this discussion is around the "And [Iran's ability to shut down the strait at will] is way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on." comment. You've been up and down this thread with the same theme: That idea is patently ridiculous, a nuke is far more effective than a naval blockade. I disagree with that premise.

Hyperbole used to illustrate that nuclear weapons aren't the end-all be-all answer you argue they are. We have them, yet for all practical intents and purposes, we can't use them against Iran. Why would the script be any different the other way around? Are you of the mindset that Iran would be willing to use them offensively? To what end? They have to know that a nuclear escalation by them would, quite literally, be the end of their existence. I don't believe they would be willing to use them.

There are many things that have no objective value in one situation, but plenty of value elsewhere. Nuclear weapons are a great example. Hence the "for this situation" qualification at the end of my "So yes, they are rhetorical devices for this situation." sentence. I don't believe we, or Israel, are dumb enough to escalate to a nuclear conflict. I do not believe that Iran would escalate to a Nuclear conflict. That's the root of why I believe that their ability to control the strait is more a more effective tool in this conflict than a nuke would be. Unless you're willing to use them offensively, they are pointless for gaining any international leverage.

That one made me chuckle. He is a man of many facets, that's for sure.

Nukes are a deterrent against other nukes. That's it. We would have to be batshit insane to launch a nuke at Iran. So no, they aren't useless, they just serve a different purpose.

Depends. What's the threat? A gun is a great deterrent against someone breaking into your house, or robbing you on the street. A nuke would be decidedly bad for that purpose. If someone is threatening nuclear war with you, I'd prefer to have nukes available.

Unless we are willing to use them offensively to achieve some objective? Yes, they are rhetorical devices. Think about it. We could literally go park a nuclear submarine in the middle of the Strait and say "break the blockade or else". There are two responses: They capitulate, or call our bluff. My bet? They invite us to go flour our nuts. Even Trump isn't stupid enough to start a global nuclear war, and they know it. So yes, they are rhetorical devices for this situation.

An action's effectiveness depends on one's willingness to use it. Having a lever is pretty useless if you'll never pull it because the global consequences are unthinkable. I believe that's the point OP is making.

Yes, actually nuking Iran would be more effective at achieving whatever the stated objective over there is this week. But we aren't going to do it. Iran knows that, or at least outwardly operates as though that is the case. Of course we have the physical ability to nuke Iran, but (I hope) our leadership understands none of us would be around to see if it worked.