Nearly Half of Global Coal Plants Will Be Unprofitable This Year, Report Says (reuters.com) 141
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: China and other countries could be planning to build more coal plants to stimulate their economies in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic but nearly half of global coal plants will run at a loss this year, research showed on Wednesday. China has over 1,000 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power, accounting for about 60% of the country's total installed generation capacity and around 100 GW under construction. London-based environmental think tank Carbon Tracker analyzed the profitability of 95% of coal plants in operation or planned around the world.
It looked at 6,696 operational plants and 1,046 in the pipeline and found that 46% will be unprofitable this year, up from 41% in 2019, based on estimated revenues from wholesale power markets, ancillary and balancing services and capital markets, as well as running costs, carbon pricing and pollution policies. That will rise to 52% by 2030 as renewables and cheaper gas outcompete coal, the think tank said. Nearly 60% of China's existing coal plant fleet is running at an underlying loss, it said. China has 99.7 GW of coal under construction and another 106.1 GW in various stages of the planning process but 61% of that would enter the market with negative cashflow, it added. Governments and investors building new coal may never recoup their investment because coal plants typically take 15 to 20 years to cover their costs, the report said.
It looked at 6,696 operational plants and 1,046 in the pipeline and found that 46% will be unprofitable this year, up from 41% in 2019, based on estimated revenues from wholesale power markets, ancillary and balancing services and capital markets, as well as running costs, carbon pricing and pollution policies. That will rise to 52% by 2030 as renewables and cheaper gas outcompete coal, the think tank said. Nearly 60% of China's existing coal plant fleet is running at an underlying loss, it said. China has 99.7 GW of coal under construction and another 106.1 GW in various stages of the planning process but 61% of that would enter the market with negative cashflow, it added. Governments and investors building new coal may never recoup their investment because coal plants typically take 15 to 20 years to cover their costs, the report said.
Half? (Score:4, Insightful)
A good beginning.
Re:Half? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you propose to make 2bn tonnes of steel per annum without coal?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you propose to make 2bn tonnes of steel per annum without coal?
A large fraction of steel production these days turns out to be from recycling scrap, actually.
In any case, the current discussion is about power plants, not steel production.
Re:Half? (Score:4, Insightful)
I did not realise you don't know the difference between a power plant and a steel foundry.
Re:Half? (Score:4, Informative)
Coal isn't just used to generate heat in a blast furnace for refining iron ore. The coke (effectively refined coal, mostly carbon) reacts with the iron oxides in the ore, producing carbon dioxide and reduced iron. The reaction requires high temperatures to supply the activation energy. You canâ(TM)t just heat the iron ore with some other energy source, you need to set up an environment where a redox reaction will occur.
Processing scrap is different (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, but remember that the context here was recycling scrap iron and steel, not making fresh. As such, the need to reduce the iron from iron oxides is virtually eliminated, thus you see a lot of recycling done with non-coal sources, because they're a lot more controllable and less polluting, reducing the need for expensive environmental controls.
Induction furnaces are thus popular, from what I understand, often using power from hydroelectric plants.
Re: Processing scrap is different (Score:2)
Envirowackos are those that destroy the environment, not those that have the vision to save it.
Re: (Score:2)
You *can* also electrolyze it. You have to provide the energy you would have otherwise gotten from the substitution reaction, which is why it's not generally done today, but it is possible. The aluminum smelters, who have to electrolyze anyway but still use carbon to soak up the oxygen, are starting to do it carbon free.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose to make 2bn tonnes of steel per annum without coal?
The article is about power stations, not coal mines.
Re:Half? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you propose to make 2bn tonnes of steel per annum without coal?
It's actually now cheaper and easier to smelt iron, and produce steel, using Natural Gas rather than coking coal. The gas contains dramatically fewer impurities, can be controlled more easily, is cheaper, and more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric induction?
Where do you get Electricity from then?
Natural Gas, HydroElectric, Solar, Wind, Nuclear... Nearly anything that can cause movement, or have a chemical reaction that creates electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose to make 2bn tonnes of steel per annum without coal?
Well we can start by setting less of it on fire to make power.
But seriously you think the same coal goes through a power plant (or even into a powerplant) as it does in a steel mill? You've got some reading up to do.
Re: (Score:2)
1,000 gigawatts (GW)
Isn't there an ISO unit for 1000 of something?
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct, a kilo is a thousand units, but a "kilogiga" has its own special name, we call it "tera".
ie. 1,000 gigawatts is therefore called a terawatt.
If you enjoy this stuff there's a web page here with a complete list of all the names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Terawatt? Is that like a Petamilliwatt?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, who did this study again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, it was "London-based environmental think tank Carbon Tracker".
No political agenda there
Re:Hmm, who did this study again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, it was "London-based environmental think tank Carbon Tracker". No political agenda there
Do you have anything to contribute about flaws in the methodology, or assumptions?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The correct assumption is that any "Think Tank" has a political agenda. Who is funding these "Think Tanks"? They aren't doing it for free. Don't be naive.
Re: (Score:2)
The correct assumption is that any "Think Tank" has a political agenda. Who is funding these "Think Tanks"? They aren't doing it for free. Don't be naive.
If the political agenda leads them to a faulty analysis then we can examine the analysis and see where it's wrong. If the analysis is correct despite their agenda, then we have to accept what they're saying even though we don't like it. This isn't called "being naive". It's called "reality doesn't care about your personal biases".
There's an old saying "heed not the words of demons, even though they speaketh the truth" -- the idea that evil ones will use truth only as a weapon, only when doing so will cause
Re: (Score:2)
You can't examine the analysis because you can't trust their data. Do you seriously think they have access to the balance sheets of Chinese owned coal plants? God, critical thinking skills. If you want to run your own analysis, go ahead. Good luck. Maybe give China a call and they will send you the accounting data.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't examine the analysis because you can't trust their data. Do you seriously think they have access to the balance sheets of Chinese owned coal plants? God, critical thinking skills.
I'm not sure which part of "critical thinking skills" involving concluding that an analysis is flawed that you haven't read? You're making a handwavey argument that the analysis must necessarily be flawed, without knowing the nature of the argument nor how they derived their numbers. You're not aware of whether they took your concern into account nor how they addressed it.
Maybe you're using the same kind of critical thinking skills as armchair experts who say of a scientific study "oh it's dumb because they
Re: (Score:2)
You can't examine the analysis because you can't trust their data. Do you seriously think they have access to the balance sheets of Chinese owned coal plants? God, critical thinking skills. If you want to run your own analysis, go ahead. Good luck. Maybe give China a call and they will send you the accounting data.
Do you think coal plants are some kind of magic?
Anyone with half your critical thinking skill can figure out how much coal they use, and how much coal costs to buy. It's not rocket surgery.
Re:Hmm, who did this study again? (Score:4, Interesting)
The correct assumption is that any "Think Tank" has a political agenda. Who is funding these "Think Tanks"? They aren't doing it for free. Don't be naive.
Everybody has a political agenda, if only something as simple as wanting safe food for their own family (yes, food access is political). The only question is, a) are they open about it or are they dissembling b) do they have a general commitment to telling the truth. The fact that you can immediately link this to an environmental charity shows that, unlike much of the fossil fuel lobby which works through astroturfing and front organisations, they pass the first test which is a good sign. Now, the question, as raised by ljw1004, is "do you have any evidence they are lying".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The fact that you can immediately link this to an environmental charity shows that, unlike much of the fossil fuel lobby which works through astroturfing and front organisations, they pass the first test which is a good sign"
What? You can't possibly be that naive. Well actually you can, because you are on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a scientific question, ask, "Is their work reproducible?"
Re: (Score:2)
That's a philosophical question. If you want a scientific question, ask, "Is their work reproducible?"
It's a good question but I don't really yet want the answer. Their work might be reproducible but misleading. Before I get to your question I'd like to have some idea about whether it's worth putting in the effort to check.
Re: (Score:2)
Political agenda or not, either coal is quickly becoming unprofitable or it isn't. If it's true, all the positive or negative vibes about coal are moot. Businesses don't like to lose money. If it isn't true and those plants are profitable, then they will keep doing what they are doing. The people who are actually spending money and building/running these plants don't care about how people think. They want to know if they are going to make or lose money.
And guess what? Often those people spending money are t
Re: (Score:2)
Building a powerplant isn't exactly a stealth operation. It's pretty easy to look at what kinds are being built. It's also not terribly difficult to look at the public operating budgets of any desired type of powerplant and extrapolate.
The vitriol on Slashdot is silly. it's certainly not going to sway the decisions of anyone building a powerplant.
Re: (Score:2)
So what are outfits like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute? Chopped liver?
Re: Hmm, who did this study again? (Score:2)
I don't think you could pay the Cato Institute enough money to deliver a paper touting the benefits of socialism over capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, each has it's specialty and affiliation, of course. But if you can't give the Cato Institute enough money to deliver a paper touting the benefits of socialism, then they don't really believe in capitalism, do they?
Re: (Score:2)
It's so refreshing to have someone on Slashdot who knows all the answers and completely understands everyone else's motives.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is funding these "Think Tanks"? They aren't doing it for free. Don't be naive.
People on the right are always obsessed with "who is funding them!!!"
What does it matter? Analyze what they are saying, and critique *that*. I don't need to know who is funding neo-Nazi groups in order to analyze their message.
The most recent example is Greta Thunberg. "Conservatives" are losing it over who her funders are. Who cares? Look at her message. If she is factually wrong, state that.
When I listen to Seb G
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The correct assumption is that any "Think Tank" has a political agenda.
I assume by that you mean that everything with a political agenda has flaws in the methodology or assumptions. So go ahead, start pointing them out. Or are you just making pointless assumptions while contributing nothing to the debate?
Re:Hmm, who did this study again? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, it was "London-based environmental think tank Carbon Tracker". No political agenda there
Do you have anything to contribute about flaws in the methodology, or assumptions?
You're right, I didn't read the report. But I did read the "about" on their web site. Their mission is carbon reduction, and their approach is to convince investors it is uneconomical.
Our mission
We recognise that there is a limited global ‘carbon budget’ of cumulative emissions that must be respected to avoid overshooting 2C and destabilising the global climate. Our view is that capital markets are failing to align the capital allocation process, exposing the owners of fossil fuel companies – their shareholders – to potential lost value, as has already been witnessed in the EU utilities and US coal mining sectors. We further believe that companies have not sufficiently factored in the possibility that future demand could be significantly reduced by technological advances and changing policy.
Our role is to help markets understand and quantify these implied risks.
Emissions of greenhouse gases will need to fall severely if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of warming. Such constraints will have profound effects on the supply of and demand for fossil fuels, which account for the largest human source of greenhouse emissions.
We carry out scenario analysis to examine and understand how potential changes to supply and demand will impact the future of fossil fuel-exposed companies and projects. This analysis helps the investment community better understand the financial implications of tackling climate change;
Our analytical research identifies the highest cost, riskiest investments enabling greater scrutiny by analysts, asset owners, investors, policy makers and financial regulators.
Our regulatory research builds the case for reform of the financial regulatory system in order to improve transparency of climate-related financial risks and articulates the key changes to be made.
We provide expert insight for those engaging with energy companies around future strategy and capital expenditure.
Our research is grounded in conventional financial analysis, and focuses on forward-looking material issues. As a not-for-profit research house we are free from the constraints that would be imposed by a commercial financial research business model. This allows us to challenge business-as-usual approaches that we consider to be unsustainable in the face of the unprecedented challenge posed by climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's ad-hominem attack on them but you don't actually have any criticism of their report?
Sounds like an admission that they are right and all you could do is fall back on the ad-hominem logical fallacy in the hope that people would fall for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely an ad hominem, and the criticism on his part is invalid from that point of view (just because someone is biased does not invalidate their research).
That said, I have not found the report to read, but the link in the summary states:
In 2019, 41% of the existing global coal fleet could have been cashflow negative (i.e. the operating costs are greater than revenues received) based our modelling methodology, despite an 8% year-on-year decline in fuel prices.
In 2020 we expect 46% of the fleet to be cashflow negative based our modelling methodology. We expect the impact of COVID-19 on coal power economics to be limited due to already suppressed coal prices and the insignificance of carbon pricing globally.
They do not disclose their model, and they have not validated it against 2019 results (note, they say "could have been cashflow negative" and not "were." They don't know. Also, we all know "cashflow" and "profitability" are not the same thing. You can be profita
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The correct default assumption for any study with political consequences is "propaganda". Really, everything these days should be assumed to be propaganda until proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You can find a political bias for anyone and any organisation. Just try to name one that is unimpeachable.
Thus all information will be ignored unless you choose to also ignore those biases, which you will do selectively to build your own preferred version of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust only those who "bend over backwards to prove themselves wrong", to quote Feynman. This is of course the line between good science and bad.
But in the broader world, assuming everyone you hear from is a conman is a good approach. This goes double for investing!
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, I didn't read the report. But I did read the "about" on their web site.
How would you distinguish between an agenda-driven organization that pushes an agenda because it had done good data-analysis and found an important message worth sharing, from one that's pushing an agenda for self-interest and then distorts the data to further that agenda?
The way I do it is by reading what they have to say. I have a critical mind and the kind of logical sleights used by the latter are always easy to spot and are often informative. I think it's wrong (contributes to polarization, and misses
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, who did this study again? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about other sources? (Score:2)
Well, it looks like they only looked at coal. I think it is safe to say that a lot of power generation facilities, especially newer ones that are not paid for yet, are going to see profits drop rapidly this year, what with a global pandemic killing off business and industry big time.
2020 is probably not going to be the most opportune year to bring any new electrical generation capacity online, and it's going to be a tough year for the ones already running.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it looks like they only looked at coal. I think it is safe to say that a lot of power generation facilities, especially newer ones that are not paid for yet, are going to see profits drop rapidly this year, what with a global pandemic killing off business and industry big time. 2020 is probably not going to be the most opportune year to bring any new electrical generation capacity online, and it's going to be a tough year for the ones already running.
I wonder how much of a plant's operating cost is fuel, how much is rent/maintenance, and how much is debt? I wonder how different the ratios are for coal vs nuclear vs wind vs solar?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have anything to contribute about flaws in the methodology, or assumptions?
What does it mean that the coal power plants run at a loss? Does this mean that they will be shuttered? That there won't be more of them built?
Lots of large companies will run some segment of their business at a loss because it means the total is profitable. When it comes to electrical utilities providing power they don't much care if a given power plant is running at a loss so long as the fleet of their power plants make a profit. Wind and solar power is inherently unreliable, because the wind and sun
Re: (Score:2)
What does it mean that the coal power plants run at a loss? ... [reliability, base-load, fluctuations]
Thank you. That was a clear explanation, and a good way to understand the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they wrong though?
It's not a secret that coal has been struggling to make a profit in many places as alternatives like gas and renewables produce cheaper energy, and environmental standards and carbon pricing push their costs up.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not. China has committed to a particular carbon intensity and appears serious about achieving it. That's why, although they've built a lot of coal plants as part of their industrialization progam, they've also built a lot of renewable and gas capacity.
Also, China is one of the world's biggest importers of coal. They very rightly see this as a major strategic vulnerability. China is absolutely aware that in a conflict the US could easily cut off their access to world markets. Thus, they're strivi
Re: (Score:3)
In 2020 All facts seem to have a political agenda.
Even established facts created hundreds or thousands of years ago. Seem to be part of the modern political agenda conspericy.
Re: Hmm, who did this study again? (Score:2)
Your post has a political agenda. I guess no one should pay attention to you.
Sure we believe you (Score:2, Insightful)
"London-based environmental think tank Carbon Tracker"
"Think Tanks" are just lobbyists who are paid to generate reports to support some policy that someone wants to enact. How would a bunch of people in London know what the operating costs are for Chinese plants? They don't know. Do you think the Chinese are handing over their balance sheets? They are just putting out numbers. Stop pushing lobbyist propaganda.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can believe words mean whatever you want, I guess - but propaganda, definition below from https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com] - is only information to promote your viewpoint / ideology. It can be true or not true. In fact obviously it's better if it IS true. You can still use it for propaganda. It's basically synonymous with marketing.
propaganda noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
propaganda | \ prä-p-gan-d
, pr- \
Definition of propaganda
1 capitalized : a congregation of th
Re: (Score:2)
Basically propaganda is generally disprovable.
That's a particularly bad definition of propaganda, and one the propagandists greatly benefit from. Deceiving people using a collection of true statements works much better. Heck, once you start using statistics, it's not even difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is "100%" unverifiable. It is highly unlikely to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
It is "100%" unverifiable. It is highly unlikely to be true.
What's there to verify? Did he hear someone tell him that you beat your wife? Let's verify that by asking him what he heard.
Yep, it looks like he heard you beat your wife. I verified it. 100% verified. He heard you beat your wife. All true. All verified. But also misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling people "Fucking Millennials" is what internet trolls do when they don't have any facts or logical arguments to support their views.
plonk
Re: (Score:2)
What we get out of this is that you're tremendously thin-skinned and that we're supposed to avoid any mention of Trump whatsoever that isn't laudatory, else you might cry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and yet it's you that's hurling all the insults, as always.
Re: (Score:2)
In your first post you used the word "Trump" three times.
Fact check: 110010001000 mentioned Trump zero times in any of his 6 posts before the one where he said "Trump" twice. He did not say Trump in his first post in this topic, nor this thread line.
Fsct check [Re:Sure we believe you] (Score:2)
In your first post you used the word "Trump" three times.
Fact check: 110010001000 mentioned Trump zero times in any of his 6 posts before the one where he said "Trump" twice. He did not say Trump in his first post in this topic, nor this thread line.
Fact check? Let's see:
No we don't need to be careful. And shut up with your Trump rhetoric. I never mentioned Trump once. I get it. "Gaslighting", etc etc. Fucking Millennials just discovered the word. You don't like Trump.....
Count: three
Right. "Trolling" "Gaslighting". We get it. You guys don't like Trump. Who the fuck cares? I never mentioned Trump once....
Count: two.
Yes, mentioning Trump three times in order to say "I never mentioned Trump" is, in fact, mentioning Trump three times. Mentioning Trump twice to say a second time that he never mentioned Trump (in the thread where in the very previous post he had just mentioned Trump three times), is, in fact, mentioning Trump twice.
Even if we discount the two time he said "I never mentioned Trump once"-- that's still three times he mentions Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
another classic post spewing nothing but indiscriminate hate.
Not actually mentioning Trump is the most effective way to support Trump propaganda, but of course you know that. What is surprising is that you didn't mention Hillary once. Surely that will happen soon.
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States think tanks are just lobbyists who are paid to generate reports to support some policy that someone wants to enact.
Fixed that for you.
Just a polite note: Many other countries aren't quite as venal and corrupt as the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
From my perspective here in the UK, we are not *as* corrupt as the Us, but we're still pretty corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Having family in the UK and having spent time there, I can't say I disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Just a polite note: Many other countries aren't quite as venal and corrupt as the United States.
Correct. Often, they're worse. Some marginally, others grossly.
Re: (Score:2)
Most, however, aren't nearly as bad. And it's not as though this isn't known. In Canada, for example, the term "Yankee Trader" usually means a con man, cheat or drug smuggler.
Re: (Score:2)
How would a bunch of people in London know what the operating costs are for Chinese plants? They don't know. Do you think the Chinese are handing over their balance sheets?
Erm this isn't rocket surgery, you can quite easily estimate operating costs of facilities around the world. A large part of their inputs and outputs are openly traded, and the rest is aggregate statistics.
That *you* don't know this says only something about you. But then we knew all we need to know already when you do nothing but ad hominem attacks rather than actually argue against the the point or report they made.
I believe them (Score:2)
China might be different because of their disregard for the safety of their people, but here in North America coal isn't profitable. Natural Gas kills it
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to what you push?
I do not think for a moment that "balance sheets" were used for analysis, and I can confidently say that "you don't know" whether they know or not.
Re: (Score:2)
This is BS (Score:2)
I know of a local coal fired power plant that generates power for 4cents per kwh USD but it's close to a lot of coal. Gas is 5 to 8 cents in many places. Although I do know of a solar installation in india that is selling power for 4cents that just started... but I don't know about their financing and it doesn't supply a base load. Either way, gas and solar comboed are the way to go,the market will take care of itself. China needs to import gas and they have coal, so they will burn what they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China is one of the biggest coal importers in the world. You're right, much of it from Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they import a load of coal from Australia
I recall China imports a lot of uranium from Australia too.
Australia mines something like 1/8th of the uranium in the world but they have no nuclear power plants of their own. Australia sells uranium to China, Japan, South Korea, and anyone else that wants to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
We must be experiencing a global cooldown because it only hit 45F at my house today. Average high this time of year is 55F.
Then what does this say about solar/wind? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but the openei data you link to ends 6 years ago, and shows a clear ...
trend towards solar and wind beating even gas. It would be good
to see the data up to 2019
Re: (Score:2)
The US Energy Information Administration things solar looks pretty good, even without subsidies.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a... [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The US Energy Information Administration things solar looks pretty good, even without subsidies.
Make note that not all solar is equal. There's several sources on Wikipedia, including the US EIA, that show rooftop PV and solar thermal are far more expensive than other low CO2 energy sources like onshore wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear. Where solar power is cheap is when it's close to the ground and at utility scales, not on top of buildings and above parking lots. This means solar power is competing with other uses for sunlit land, such as crops and wildlife.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Roo
Re: (Score:2)
Public utility (Score:2)
Power is a public utility / infrastructure item. They aren't supposed to be profit centers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
False. Power production is a private enterprise in most of the world and absolutely a profit centre. Very few countries have powerplants that are owned and operated wholly by the government, which is a large part of why members of the public get a power bill.
Also you should google the term public utility. You may realise that private for profit enterprises are still public utilities because that term means something different than you think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that way in most of Europe, but it was privitized 20+ years ago in almost all of them (I think it was EU demanded).
Fudge factors (Score:2)
46% will be unprofitable this year, up from 41% in 2019, based on estimated revenues from wholesale power markets, ancillary and balancing services and capital markets, as well as running costs, carbon pricing and pollution policies.
That 'carbon pricing and pollution policies' cost are basically saying "We don't like coal. So we'll add some numbers to make it look bad." I don't see anything for operating costs. Primarily the spinning reserve allowances that all 'traditional' power wholesalers are required to provide, but wind and solar seem to have conveniently sidestepped. Alternative energy schemes treat this as an externality for which they have no responsibility. Even to the point that their providers complain when a utility provid
China will not care. True capitalism will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Let's end the road subsidies [archive.org] that favor the trucking industry at the expense of the railway companies!
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think a sarcastic response is appropriate based on your misunderstanding of what was said. Perhaps you should invest your cleverness in greater reading comprehension.