I've used perl a bit too. But once I started learning python I regretted a lot of my perl usage.

Government intervention drove up prices. In the 80s, when student loans were largely a private affair, they looked at the earning potential of your major. If you wanted to go to an expensive private Ivy League school and study liberal arts they laughed. Apply for a credit card, the banks gave STEM majors a card with an initial $1,000 limit. Liberal arts majors, if they were approved, the card had an initial $100 limit. You were squarely confronted with your earning potential on day one, you were left with no illusions. The introduction for new students in my history department said, on day one, you will probably never get a job as a historian, that your history degree will qualify you for the numerous entry level corporate jobs that require a 4-year degree. Enjoy the next four years, but have a realistic outlook and take a few business classes as electives.

Want lower prices, stop inflating the demand. High demand, higher prices. Don't push kids to go to college. If they are interested in college, great. If they want to study something of low economic value, face reality unless you have wealthy parent that can pay for it. I'm sorry if Art History is your passion, but its a wonderful hobby not a career.

Its not. Last I checked, a couple of years ago, the average public college grad has around $27K of student debt at the time of graduation.

The 6-digit debts are pretty much those who decided to go to prestige private schools. I think the average private school debt at graduation was around $40K.

.... feeding on government.

Stop inflating the demand. Make loans proportional to earning potential. Stop subsidizing expensive prestige private schools, loans should be based on State University costs.

Into the army as cannon fodder in Ukraine

They do comfortably raise a family, just not on day one as an apprentice. Pretty much just like day one as a computer science intern.

It probably varies with the state. California's college system is still organized along the 1050s/60s plan. 1/4 of higher education budget goes to community colleges. Community College has a dual mandate. (1) 2-year degree programs plus remedial and adult education. (2) Vocational training. Some of the more specialized training is not available at all community colleges. But they try to spread them out strategically so everyone can get what they want. For example a cousin had to go to a community college 30 miles from home rather than the nearby one to get into a industrial diesel engine program.

People in the trades do comfortably have families of 4 and their own home. Just not on day one as an apprentice. I grew up in that world, much of my family and childhood friends are still in that world.

Plus an apprentice gets hit with buying their own tools. But buy good stuff and it will last generations. I just installed a couple of electrical outlets with 30W and 60W USB-C ports (phone charging and laptop usage spots respectively). Using my grandfather's Kleins from his apprenticeship days. Pig tail with solid twists under those wire nuts to preserve electrical box wiring.

I guess apprentices might have it a little easier today. Harbor Freight on day one and upgrade to pro tools as comfortable. Unless it's a unions apprenticeship, that could be a controversial move. But a local plumbing or electrical contractor, probably not a problem.

Well aren't they? It's about speed and performance, carbon output does not change this. I'm old enough to remember moped "popularity". I will deny ever riding one, thank god everyone wasn't carrying a camera back then. :-) When e-bikes came on the scene and suddenly, "overnight" seeming, all the kids on the block were riding e-bikes, my first thought was "huh, mopeds have gone electric". Gas -> Electric doesn't change this. New spin on old idea.

Again, you are looking only at energy production, a single isolated sector. As your citation showed, coal is down in one sector and up in different sectors (steel, chemical industry). Overall, renewables are supplementing coal, not displacing it. China continues to burn coal as fast as they can dig it up or import it. It is the first choice with respect to using fossil fuels to fill the gap between demand and renewables.

Am I discussing overall, total use, not isolated use in one sector. Given that China is already burning coal as fast as they can dig it up or import it, to use more in one sector means they have to take it from a different sector. That is not a win wrt pollution. It maintains their massive output of pollution.

Your citation mentions that there is a goal to reach peak coal mid decade (about now), but then we have Xi signaling potentially backing off such agreements.

"[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside factors, according to the Washington Post and Bloomberg. This contradicts Xi’s 2015 Paris Agreement pledges to reduce its carbon emissions at the latest after 2030."
https://www.heritage.org/globa...

Again, one sector, there is not enough coal for all sectors despite all the mining and imports. There is a gap between demand and renewables. Coal is China's first choice. And coals overall use seems to still be growing. See reference below related to fertilizer and chemical industry.

"[21 August 2025] Coal-power capacity could surge by as much as 80-100GW this year, potentially setting a new annual record, even as coal-fired electricity generation declines."
"A former senior official at one of China’s largest power firms stated in an interview in June 2025 that companies are building coal power capacity due to central government pressure."
"Even if its emissions fall in 2025 as expected, however, China is bound to miss multiple important climate targets this year. This includes targets to reduce its carbon intensity – the emissions per unit of GDP – to strictly control coal consumption growth and new coal-power capacity,"
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...

"Excess coal-based capacity and a lack of incentives for shifting production mean that electric arc steelmakers, rather than coal-based steel mills, tend to absorb reductions in output, as their operating costs are higher and costs of shutting down and starting up production lines are lower."

Overall we have to look beyond power generation, for example:
"The use of coal to make synthetic fuels and chemicals is growing rapidly, climbing 20% in the first half of the year and helping add 3% to China’s CO2 since 2020. The coal-chemical industry is planning further expansion, which could add another 2% to China’s CO2 by 2029, making the 2030 deadline for peaking harder to meet."

Because the citations below are still the reality of today. Note the Aug 2025 citation shows a coal first fossil fuel policy to cover the gap between renewables and demand.

"[21 August 2025] Coal-power capacity could surge by as much as 80-100GW this year, potentially setting a new annual record, even as coal-fired electricity generation declines."
"A former senior official at one of China’s largest power firms stated in an interview in June 2025 that companies are building coal power capacity due to central government pressure."
"The use of coal to make synthetic fuels and chemicals is growing rapidly, climbing 20% in the first half of the year and helping add 3% to China’s CO2 since 2020. The coal-chemical industry is planning further expansion, which could add another 2% to China’s CO2 by 2029, making the 2030 deadline for peaking harder to meet."
"Excess coal-based capacity and a lack of incentives for shifting production mean that electric arc steelmakers, rather than coal-based steel mills, tend to absorb reductions in output, as their operating costs are higher and costs of shutting down and starting up production lines are lower."
"Even if its emissions fall in 2025 as expected, however, China is bound to miss multiple important climate targets this year. This includes targets to reduce its carbon intensity – the emissions per unit of GDP – to strictly control coal consumption growth and new coal-power capacity,"
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...

"[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside factors, according to the Washington Post and Bloomberg. This contradicts Xi’s 2015 Paris Agreement pledges to reduce its carbon emissions at the latest after 2030."
https://www.heritage.org/globa...

"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. "" https://www.statista.com/stati... "[October 08, 2024] Despite its commitment to "phase down" coal, China recently has been permitting and constructing coal plants at rates not seen in a decade." "China consumes over half of the world’s coal and contributes more than 20% of global CO2 emissions from coal combustion.""
https://today.ucsd.edu/story/d...

"China’s coal-fired power plants generated 59.6 percent of the country’s electricity in the first half of 2024. China’s coal-fired generation from January to June was 2,793.5 terawatt hours, which was 2.4 percent higher than the same months in 2023 and the highest amount for the first half of the year since at least 2015." "Power sector carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels was 2.826 billion metric tons during the first half of 2024–2.4 percent higher than the same months in 2023.""
"China’s imports of thermal coal from the seaborne market, used mainly to generate electricity, were 168.73 million metric tons in the first six months of the year, up 8.5 percent from 155.51 million in the same period in 2023. This was the strongest first half in China’s history." "China’s coal production rebounded in June, with output of all grades of coal rising to a six-month high of 405.38 million tons, which was 3.6 percent above the same month in 2023.""
https://www.instituteforenergy...

"China accounted for 95% of the world’s new coal power construction activity in 2023""
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ch...

"Share of coal in emissions 79% of total CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, 2022"
Share of coal in electricity 61.7% of total electricity generation, 2022"
https://www.iea.org/countries/....

Mitigated by pumps often being idle over the day.

Perhaps this is why the "Energy Companies" are favoring converting the entire gas station. They can get more chargers on the same existing real estate. Instead of converting a pump at a time as local use of EVs increase, converting an entire station at a time. Either way, we still end up with our existing gas stations becoming our future charging stations. Precisely where demand dictates a need for refueling.

Again, gas station history gives the answer. "Full service" not "Self Serve", an attended handles the charger for you. They check your time pressure, washer fluid level, and clean your windshield during the charge. :-)

You are making the mistake I referred to in my previous post. Looking at one sector, energy production, while I am referring to total use across all sectors. You are also confusing a drop in the percentage, "drop in coal’s share of the mix" as your citations says, with use. Your citation actually refers to increased coal use: "Coal-fired generation capacity increased by 3%" Renewables and hydro simply increased by much greater amounts, lowering coal's percentage despite the increase in use.

The amount of coal that China can dig up or import is limited, they still have a gap in demand. Renewables don't fill that gap yet. So they still have to use the more expensive fossil fuels at times. But coal remains their first choice in overall. They pursue a lowest cost fuel strategy when it comes to fossil fuels, that is coal.

Your citation only mentions two sector. Mentioning a decline in coal use in one and an increase in coal use in another. It actually refers to overall coal consumption growth:

"Even if its emissions fall in 2025 as expected, however, China is bound to miss multiple important climate targets this year. This includes targets to reduce its carbon intensity – the emissions per unit of GDP – to strictly control coal consumption growth and new coal-power capacity, as well as to increase the share of cleaner electric-arc steelmaking in total steel output."

You are making the mistake I referred to in my previous post, looking at one sector only. The amount of coal that China can dig up or import is limited, they still have a gap in demand. Renewables don't fill that gap yet. So they still have to use the more expensive fossil fuels. But coal remains their first choice in total across all sectors.

You have to look at total consumption, not a single sector, and for a full year to make a valid comparison. The data is not in yet. I hope you turn out to be correct, but we've seen these false claims before.

We have lots of chargers put into odd locations to capture government grants. Hence the problem in the USA of chargers built on some available land, possibly a little out of the way, and not maintained. The gov't grants paid for construction, not maintenance. So there was some build and abandon sort of scamming going on. Classic well intended gov't program that had a superficial analysis and they didn't really consider unintended consequences and scammers.

The real solution to charging infrastructure is to slowly convert individual gas pumps to EV chargers at a rate the match local EV adoption. We've had nearly a 100 years of a Darwinian process determining where people tend to need to refuel, the land and businesses are already in place. A charger merely needs to replace a pump.

Alternatively, for areas with multiple gas stations, one station may be close and entirely converted to charging stations. The big "Energy Companies" who own many stations seem to favor this approach. Think of a highways where most off ramps have a station. One off ramp station is convert to chargers, the next/previous off ramp left as gas. The number of stations along the highway converted again subject to local needs.

Keep in mind the "Oil Companies" decided to transition to "Energy Companies" back in the 1970s. They are simply not evangelists pushing renewables, however they are entirely ready to profit off of the public's desire to switch to renewables. They have been doing their R&D for decades to be ready.

The EV mandates are all political theatre. They are just pandering to voters who vote based on virtual signaling rather than actual accomplishments.

These mandates are set in the distant enough future to not impact the virtue signaling politician at the time they issue the mandate. Many will have moved on to different roles by the target date, it won't be their problem.

That future office holder will feel no obligation to accept the negative consequences of the previous office holder's PR stunt.

When reality hits, and science, engineering, and economics had not progressed at the mandate rate, they will just change the due date. Science, engineering, and economics will also decide the date.

Or at the due date, the EV mandate will be morphed into a tax on ICE.