It's ok to be angry about capitalism

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,138
6,550
118
Country
United States
Subsidise the mining companies. Sometimes mining towns, usually companies.

Another thing to be annoyed at, there's no money for R&D for making coal power more efficient. Because we should stop using coal for power, which is fair enough...but then that doesn't happen, we still use coal for power, and it would be better if the research was done to make it cheaper, more efficient and less polluting, but that's not happening.
That's because we *have* cheaper, more efficient, and less polluting. It's "everything besides coal"

Seriously, the only reason we subsidize coal is literally identity politics. It's pathetic
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,850
1,714
118
Country
United Kingdom
Subsidise the mining companies. Sometimes mining towns, usually companies.
Looking back to the effects of sudden cuts to mining subsidies in the UK this is somewhat understandable, but also seems kind of useless without corresponding investment in building up the economies of coal mining areas to make them more resilient and less dependent on coal in the long term, otherwise you're just delaying the pain.

Another thing to be annoyed at, there's no money for R&D for making coal power more efficient.
There is. In fact, it's something the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in, performatively or otherwise. The problem is that you're adding complexity and cost to a technology whose only advantage is being cheap and simple, and that raises the question of why bother when you could just invest that money in renewable energy or nuclear or literally anything else.

Because at that point it's ultimately the same challenge. "Clean coal" isn't economically viable, so we need to bring down costs and build an economy of scale to make it economically viable.. except that's the same reason, and the same solution, as to why we're not using any of the alternatives available. The more you build something, the more infrastructure and industry is set up to support it, the cheaper it gets. In many countries, renewable energy is now economically viable and indeed competitive because those countries have been investing in it for decades now. US Republicans soyfacing over clean coal is just attempting to retrospectively justify the poor decision to keep investing in fossil fuels over alternatives.
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,138
3,221
118
Looking back to the effects of sudden cuts to mining subsidies in the UK this is somewhat understandable, but also seems kind of useless without corresponding investment in building up the economies of coal mining areas to make them more resilient and less dependent on coal in the long term, otherwise you're just delaying the pain.
True, though that's the same with all industries. Though, mining in many places of the UK is a generational thing which is somewhat unusual compared to many newer industries.

There is. In fact, it's something the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in, performatively or otherwise. The problem is that you're adding complexity and cost to a technology whose only advantage is being cheap and simple, and that raises the question of why bother when you could just invest that money in renewable energy or nuclear or literally anything else.
Going to disagree with you there, (my father is not long retired from energy sciences in CSIRO and gripes about this) Though, he wasn't talking about "clean coal" or any magic solutions like that, just increasing the efficiency of existing systems. By no means a long term solution, but it's something while people sit around and delay the long term solution anyway.