"Clean Energy." It doesn't just fall out of the sky.

I am in favor of the development of as much solar, wind and other "green technologies." But we need to know the limits and costs of these developments, including damage to the environment around mines and refineries.

That is the very point I am trying to make. Too many people call this "clean," energy.

I have pointed out the absurdity of recognizing the daily damage coal fired electrical plants do to the environment and their impact on global warming, and not converting them to natural gas, which is available, causes about half the damage and can be cheaper. The activists choose to lump all fossil sources together, because they don't care about doing what is possible to mitigate the problem, if allowing it to get worse means they "win." Natural Gas is not perfectly clean. But, until "green," solutions are widely available, NG is the best choice.

I read a report from MIT, about five years ago, that siad if we had all the Rare Earth materials and other resources, we needed it would take at least two decades to convert the US to "green," energy. We still don't have the supplies needed.

Yeah. I guess I'm "just figuring this out."

Well, I'm glad you are looking at the practicality of solutions and not responding based on political biases.

I know you are, but what am I.