Denny... Have you ever fucking heard of a battery? I know you have I know you have batteries somewhere in your house... Jesus...
Batteries have a limited life, are really expensive, and there isn't enough lithium on the earth. There's a reason a Tesla costs a ridiculous amount of money.
There isn't enough gas and coal on the earth either so what are you talking about? If the entire Earth was filled with oil it would only last for 300 years. Do you not expect our species to live longer than that? Now answer the question as to whether or not you're for or against nuclear.
For. It's virtually unlimited and requires a very small footprint. It is clean, too. Our energy demands will increase over time. All the smart devices that will be installed in millions of homes aren't free to use, energy wise. It's a safe bet that future innovations will require more energy, too. Here's an analysis of what going all in with the powerwall means. For a nation of 20M or less. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/in...ring-higher-energy-costs-20160211-gmr6y4.html
Electrical companies don't want to burn coal. They want to burn natural gas. Gas is cheaper and maintenance is much cheaper. Coal is dirty, the cost of keeping those plants running is too expensive compared to nat gas.
FWIW, I drive a Prius and my other car is a golf cart. Since the local poer company stopped buying back power at retail rates, no solar dealer will even talk to me about installing solar. I even tried telling the salespersons I don't care if I can sell the power to the electric company, but they refuse. My electric bill is $hundreds less than the loan payment on a solar system sufficient to run my house during the day. Add in the cost to buy power to run it at night and it is an absurd proposition.
They don't want to close their coal plants. It's not like they're losing money selling power at a profit.
Yes, many electrical companies are closing their coal plants and it has nothing to do with regulations or clean air. Portland General Electric is closing their coal plant because of age and cost of operation. As coal plants are closed due to age they are being replaced with natural gas burning plants.
Sure. New plants are likely going to burn gas. Still, the bulk of Germany's power is from coal, and coal is at least 1/3 of our energy. Renewable energy, outside of hydroelectric, of about 5% of the power we use. Solar is about 1/2 of 1%. Wind is 4%.
Portland General Electric has the benefit of the Oregon State PUC. The Democrats control this you know. When you are granted rates that insure you make a profit, a percentage of the operating cost, Life is good. You can always have new plants the rate payers pay to build and then pay some more, and then again.
I have wood here, I don't have to go far to get it. I did get some coal though, all the way from Medford when I was experimenting with melting large amounts of lead. Turns out that Cedar worked the best to make a quick hot fire. Coal is hard to burn, you need to blow air on it hard, to get hot.
I don't claim to be able to answer for God, nor do I feel I need to; however I believe that this logic of "God allows it so it must be OK" is highly fallacious. First of all, you decry the focus on sex rather than love, when--as I've stated--homosexual sex is (in my reading of scripture) the only act in a homosexual relationship that is inherently sinful. Also, it should be stated that Paul made a point of saying that those in the church have no right or responsibility to judge those outside the church, but only those inside. So while I find homosexual sex to be sinful--just as I do premarital sex, adultery, violence, deceit, greed, gluttony, wrath, etc.--I don't judge people for their sins, because it's not my place to do so. Now as for the question of "why are gay people born that way?"--I can only assume it's the same reason that some babies are stillborn, some are born with disabilities or chronic infirmities, some are born with mental illnesses, some are born to mothers who die in childbirth, some are born in abject poverty with no prospect of relief, some are born into families full of abuse and alcoholism, and some are born orange with pompadours and tiny hands. This is a fallen, sinful world, and many things happen--while still inside God's sovereign will--outside His original perfect design, because humanity brought sin into the equation. The fact that something exists in the world God created does not necessarily make that thing good in and of itself. So no, I cannot take the notion of people being born gay as God's tacit approval of homosexuality. Otherwise, people being born sinful (as scripture indicates) would equate to His tacit approval of sin, which is simply silly. Regardless...my reasoning for my beliefs regarding homosexuality being what they are, I still fail to see how they make me "intolerant" (the original thrust of the discussion), when I don't treat gay people any differently than I do straight people. The only thing I'm intolerant of is (as proscribed by scripture) a willful persistent unrepentant adherence by a member of the church to a sinful lifestyle, and that isn't limited to homosexual sex.
I am not religious in any way. So, the two of us will never completely see eye to eye. But, I just wanted to commend you for writing a very nicely worded post about your beliefs. Mine are different, but, props for the great explanation.
