President Trump

[Cail]

First of all, Mr. Libertarian, why are you celebrating the POTUS (and not even the sitting POTUS) dictating to a company where they can do business? Second of all, how can you be happy when the government picks specific businesses to target with their largesse? Moreover, Trump's just shown that any company can get a tax break as long as they threaten to leave the country. Great.

1st: Trump didn't dictate anything. He incentivized. He made a deal.

Deal, bribe, whatever. It's a bribe.

2nd: I'm not advocating picking specific companies, I advocate an across-the-board tax cut for all corporations, just as Trump promises to do.

Me too, but that's not what this is.

3rd: The implicit threat of outsourcing has been with us for decades now. Trump didn't create that problem, he responded to it with a solution. The Republican/conservative response to that ever-present threat has always been tax relief to keep jobs here. Trump just proved that it can work. American companies don't *want* to outsource. They are being forced to do it by economic realities that are being created--in a large part--by our government and liberals in particular treating corporations and/or success as bad and something to punish.

No, Trump bribed this particular company. You can't argue from the specific to the general (which you know). If he cuts taxes across the board, I'll be on board. This is just a payoff for publicity.

You can call Trump's move here an experiment, a trial run for a larger policy. He has tested the fiscally conservative solution and proven that it works. Now we can do it on a large scale, and won't have to pick individual winners/losers, but rather apply the same winning strategy to the entire economy.

I call it a bribe, and I call it showboating.

It is entirely consistent with Libertarian principles to minimize the government impact on the economy via lower taxes and less restrictive policy*. I have openly stated that I disagree with Trump on free trade and globalization, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with making it more profitable and less expensive to keep jobs here.

And if that is what he'd done, I'd agree with you. Instead, he picked a winner. Fickle finger of fate and all that.

*[Lower taxes are just the first part of Trump's plan. He's also going to abolish many of the job-killing regulations that the liberals have imposed upon our economy.]

We'll see, won't we?

[Avatar]

1,000 jobs saved in exchange for $7million in tax breaks. And what happens next time somebody threatens to take jobs out of the country?

Was interested to see Carrier is part of United Technologies...a leading defence contractor, most of whose business comes from the Pentagon...1,000 jobs might be a small price to pay to make sure those lucrative contracts keep rolling in...

--A

[Zarathustra]

1,000 jobs saved in exchange for $7million in tax breaks. And what happens next time somebody threatens to take jobs out of the country?

They might *gasp* get their taxes lowered to a reasonable amount comparable to the rest of the world's corporate tax rate. The horror!!



Cail, is fulfilling a campaign promise really showboating?

Here's what is relevant: Trump said he could do it, and he did. Before he's even President. Obama, on the other hand, mocked such a claim and said it was impossible, that you can't just wave a magic wand and keep jobs in America. Trump has just given the world resounding evidence that the Democrats' inability to fix problems is more likely an unwillingness to implement solutions proposed by Republicans. Their indifferent surrender to unpleasant facts that they deemed unchangeable is based on an inability to imagine that fiscally conservative policies can actually produce positive results.

Whether or not you like how it was done, it is evidence that should be considered in this nationwide debate on how to fix problems. Outsourcing is a problem (apparently, to many). Lower taxes is the proposed solution to it. Trump proved it can work.

That's amazing. That's a bitchslap in the face of Democratic denial. Wake up, people. That's what results and action look like.

[SoulBiter]

OK being a numbers guy myself I threw all that into a spreadsheet.

1000 workers at the low end being paid a loaded $22 per hour (that's salary+benfits+workers comp insurance) That comes to about $45,760,000 dollars per year. Federal, state, and local taxes will be about 30% (which is low really because there are other taxes involved that don't show up in your paycheck)

Thats about $13,728,000 in taxes that would come from that.

They got a tax break of 7,000,000 to keep those jobs here.
Net tax inlays will be $6,728,000 vs $0
I could also add to that the unemployment they would draw, the govt welfare, etc etc etc if they all get fired and the numbers get even more favorable.
I was pretty conservative in the loaded salary because some of those 1,000 would surely have been Supervisors, Managers, Directors, Analysts, etc etc.. which would drive that up a bit which also makes the deal more favorable.

I think the US comes out pretty good on that deal.

[Zarathustra]

OK being a numbers guy myself I threw all that into a spreadsheet....


I think the US comes out pretty good on that deal.

Yep, pretty much what I concluded on the last page after looking at the numbers. Considering payroll taxes alone, it's revenue neutral, and gets better once you throw in other taxes/factors.

I don't understand looking for negatives in this, unless it's just anti-Trump bias. It's nothing at all like Solyndra (as Cail claimed). Solyndra wasted tax payer dollars--not a tax break, but a $535 million loan of which they only paid back $7 million--because they weren't profitable and went out of business. It was a net loss, not only the $528 million of tax payer money, but also the 1100 jobs that were lost to the "Green Energy" myth. How the hell is Carrier worse than that?? It's such a ridiculous, unfounded claim, it can only come from the irrationality of bias.

Let me repeat: green energy as a feasible solution is a myth. Until we have fusion, no "green energy" is going to replace fossil fuels to any significant extent. It's not a matter of throwing enough money at the problem, it's physics. You can't turn an intermittent, inherently small-scale energy source into a stable, scalable, plentiful fuel supply. After more than 30 years of government investment in alternative fuels, we've still replaced only a small fraction of our energy needs.

Obama threw money away on the wishful thinking, the quasi-religious belief of progressive environmentalism, while Trump saved us money by incentivizing a proven corporation/technology.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Let me repeat: green energy as a feasible solution is a myth. Until we have fusion, no "green energy" is going to replace fossil fuels to any significant extent. It's not a matter of throwing enough money at the problem, it's physics. You can't turn an intermittent, inherently small-scale energy source into a stable, scalable, plentiful fuel supply. After more than 30 years of government investment in alternative fuels, we've still replaced only a small fraction of our energy needs.

The total amount of energy arriving on the surface of the Earth from the Sun is about 120 PW (petawatts); one PW is 10^15 W. The current total worldwide consumption of electricity is roughly 13 TW; one TW is 10^12 W. Therefore, if photovoltaic cells were only 1% efficient (which they aren't--the actual efficiency is much higher than that) we could still capture 100 times as much energy as we are currently using (1.2x10^17 W coming from the Sun; 1.3x10^13 being used). We need only set up enough solar panels to capture the energy.

Let's start with this report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and overestimate that we need 3.5 acres to generate 1 GW of power over the course of a year. Those numbers pretty much coincide with this slightly older report which concluded that the electricity needs of the United States could be met by allocating only 0.6% of the available land to mixed solar panel collection. Our energy needs have increased since then, of course, but so has the technology--you can now put up solar panel film on windows and SolarCity has developed solar panel roof tiles for houses--the panels look like actual tiles.

We haven't moved completely to renewable energy because the technology isn't there or doesn't work very well. Instead, we haven't moved to more renewable energy because our current energy production is fine and too many people fall back on "if it ain't broke don't fix it" thinking.

[Zarathustra]

Hashi, the problem isn't complacency, it's physics. A power supply needs to be continuous and flexible, responding in real time to changes in demand on the power supply. The sun doesn't always shine everywhere. Half the planet is always in shade, and the other half has clouds that constantly alter the available energy. Sometimes the available sunlight drops from 100% to 10% in a matter of seconds or minutes. In order to compensate, fossil fuel generators must kick in at a moment's notice, introducing the same inefficiency loss that you get with stop and go traffic in your car. You cannot simply store the entire potential energy of a planet's needed power supply on batteries. The cost and the environmental impact of doing that would be extreme, many orders of magnitude what we're paying now. So no matter how efficient you make solar panels, they will always only be a supplement--a parasite--on fossil fuel power planets. And they only make those power plants less efficient with the stop-and-go nature of their intermittent availability.

[Cail]

Cail, is fulfilling a campaign promise really showboating?

When the promise is stupid, yes. When the promise is short-sighted, yes.

I just want to clarify that you're 100% okay with the government picking and choosing which companies deserve some sort of tax relief.

Here's what is relevant: Trump said he could do it, and he did. Before he's even President. Obama, on the other hand, mocked such a claim and said it was impossible, that you can't just wave a magic wand and keep jobs in America. Trump has just given the world resounding evidence that the Democrats' inability to fix problems is more likely an unwillingness to implement solutions proposed by Republicans. Their indifferent surrender to unpleasant facts that they deemed unchangeable is based on an inability to imagine that fiscally conservative policies can actually produce positive results.

No. What Trump did was give a payout of my money to a particular company in order to make himself look good.

Whether or not you like how it was done, it is evidence that should be considered in this nationwide debate on how to fix problems. Outsourcing is a problem (apparently, to many). Lower taxes is the proposed solution to it. Trump proved it can work.

No. Trump picked one company who he decided deserved a tax break.

That's amazing. That's a bitchslap in the face of Democratic denial. Wake up, people. That's what results and action look like.

No, that's crony capitalism.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Although it is true that the sun doesn't always shine in any particular location, the sun is always shining somewhere. I didn't say that all the panels should be clumped in one location because that would be stupid. No, you put them everywhere--roofs of buildings, roofs of houses, in the back yard, alongside the roads, etc. I also didn't say that we shut shut down all the other plants right away, either, because that would also be stupid. What is not stupid, though, is energy independence--we still import some energy and that puts us at a disadvantage to those providing that energy. We should be producing 100% of our own energy, relying on no one else for our needs.

Anyway...it looks like Carson will be SecHUD. Also, China is quite upset that Trump spoke to Tasi Ing-Wen on the phone (President of Taiwan) although it is still unclear who called who first. Either way, the net result is the same--China is upset.

All those Democrats so worried about Russian hackers likely being backed by the Russian government when, in fact, our real enemy this century is China. If they get their shit together we are going to have a real problem on our hands.

[Zarathustra]

Although it is true that the sun doesn't always shine in any particular location, the sun is always shining somewhere. I didn't say that all the panels should be clumped in one location because that would be stupid. No, you put them everywhere--roofs of buildings, roofs of houses, in the back yard, alongside the roads, etc. I also didn't say that we shut shut down all the other plants right away, either, because that would also be stupid.

industrialprogress.com/the-myth-of-wind ... -capacity/

Just because you have solar panels "everywhere" doesn't mean you can produce electricity everywhere. An electric grid can't have rolling pockets of intermittent unavailability. We call those "brown outs." It destabilizes the grid. It makes an industrializes society untenable. Everything we do requires a steady, stable, on-demand power supply. Hospitals, factories, offices, groceries, banks ... literally everything that we rely upon absolutely requires a stable energy supply. Wind and solar are not stable. Every 24 hours our country would have to shut down.* Every minute there would be a brown out in 100s or 1000s of cities. Wind and solar as significant replacements for fossil fuels is a myth. There is no technology that can make wind blow everywhere all the time, or sun shine everywhere all the time. This isn't a technological hurdle, it's just a fact. There's no technological solution to it.

We need fusion. Until then, it's fossils fuels and fission.

What is not stupid, though, is energy independence--we still import some energy and that puts us at a disadvantage to those providing that energy. We should be producing 100% of our own energy, relying on no one else for our needs.

Why should we be energy independent when we can get our energy (oil) cheaper somewhere else? Paying more for something *is* stupid. If we can produce it cheaper here, then fine. Natural gas is looking promising as an American resource. But we're not food independent, electronics independent, clothing independent, or anything else independent. Energy shouldn't be any different. We need the cheapest, easiest, most efficient form of energy in order to keep up with growing demand. Our need for energy is increasing faster than the demand for any other product or resource.

Anyway...it looks like Carson will be SecHUD. Also, China is quite upset that Trump spoke to Tasi Ing-Wen on the phone (President of Taiwan) although it is still unclear who called who first. Either way, the net result is the same--China is upset.

All those Democrats so worried about Russian hackers likely being backed by the Russian government when, in fact, our real enemy this century is China. If they get their shit together we are going to have a real problem on our hands.

Yet another reason for globalization: countries don't nuke their biggest customers.

*[We can't purchase electricity from the other side of the globe where the sun is shine during our night (especially if you want to be "energy independent"). Each hemisphere would need to produce twice as much as it needs and sell it to the other hemisphere during the night ... can you imagine the infrastructure needed to do that?? Sending half a planet's electricity over the oceans, while still maintaining your own electricity needs?]

[Zarathustra]

I just want to clarify that you're 100% okay with the government picking and choosing which companies deserve some sort of tax relief.

I think I've made it clear that I'm not for picking winners/losers as a general policy. I favor across-the-board tax relief. I've said this. However, I've always been an advocate of trial-and-error. Try a solution, see if it works, and if it doesn't then try something else. Our government is notorious for continuing to implement failed "solutions" that have been proven not to work. Because of the longevity of government programs, I don't see anything wrong with a small-scale trial prior to implementing a general policy.

This is the difference between being a pragmatist and an idealist. I'm not 100% anything. I don't let contradiction stop me from doing what's smart. It *is* smart to prove an idea on a small scale and then scale up.

What Trump did was give a payout of my money to a particular company in order to make himself look good.

He has already won the election. There's no need to "look good." He'll have an entire term of experience to run on in 2020, no one will remember Carrier. He is making his policies look good. He is building the political capital necessary to motivate those wimpy Republicans who are too timid to embrace their own ideas. He is going to move into the White House "hitting the ground running."

That's why everyone is bending over backwards to find something negative to say about this, so that his bargaining position--his mandate to do what he promised--will be weakened. His opponents don't want him to succeed, so they must paint his successes as failures ... just as you are doing.

If Trump makes it a habit to pick winners/losers individually, then I'll agree that it is crony capitalism. If he cuts corporate tax rates across the board, then this one example won't matter and will be quickly forgotten. As I pointed out, it's 0.28% of the tax cut coming to Carrier. It's insignificant, except as "proof of concept."

[Hashi Lebwohl]

As far as I know SkunkWorks is still working on cost-effective fusion. They said they would have a working prototype by 2017 but somehow I doubt that, even though they have an entire year left in which to deliver on that promise.

Depending upon other countries for a vital resource is a recipe for disaster, which is a lesson I though we learned in the late 1970s (but one which we have apparently forgotten). What if everyone decided to quintuple the price they charge us for the energy we import? Unlikely, sure, but not impossible. Are you suggesting we would have to just live with up and cough up the money? Independence means we don't have to rely on other people and, apparently, I am on a serious "we shouldn't rely on anyone else" meme these days.

About a month ago, one of the shale fields here in Texas had its estimates revised about its capacity, resulting in the USGS calling it "the largest estimated continuous oil accumulation that USGS has assessed in the United States to date"--20 billion barrels of accessible oil, 16 trillion (!) cubic feet of natural gas, and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids.

I agree that countries don't nuke their biggest customers but they do gouge prices whenever they are able to do so.

It *is* smart to prove an idea on a small scale and then scale up.

Unless the topic is "solar energy". Making your house energy-independent by putting up panels and storing the excess in batteries to use at night or on cloudy days? Good idea. Doing this for the entire nation? Bad idea.

But that's just me being an ass.

*************

Texas Elector Christopher Suprun has vowed that he will become faithless and will not cast his vote for Trump when the EC meets on 19 Dec.

[Zarathustra]

Depending upon other countries for a vital resource is a recipe for disaster, which is a lesson I though we learned in the late 1970s (but one which we have apparently forgotten).

I think the planet--humanity--is stronger by working together. Do you like fresh fruit in the winter? I do! How do you think that happens? We live in a global civilization with a global market. Humanity is too inextricably tied together to isolate ourselves now.

About a month ago, one of the shale fields here in Texas had its estimates revised about its capacity, resulting in the USGS calling it "the largest estimated continuous oil accumulation that USGS has assessed in the United States to date"--20 billion barrels of accessible oil, 16 trillion (!) cubic feet of natural gas, and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids.

That's great. If it saves us money, fine, let's use it.

I agree that countries don't nuke their biggest customers but they do gouge prices whenever they are able to do so.

We can buy oil from many different countries. No single country can gouge prices in a global market. Competition.

It *is* smart to prove an idea on a small scale and then scale up.

Unless the topic is "solar energy". Making your house energy-independent by putting up panels and storing the excess in batteries to use at night or on cloudy days? Good idea. Doing this for the entire nation? Bad idea.

But that's just me being an ass.

*************

I don't think you're being an ass, just debating.

Solar energy isn't scalable. That's the problem. It works for pocket calculators that you don't need all the time, but not for entire nations that need a constant supply. In order to get over the intermittent problem, you'd have to produce much more electricity than you need at any give time and store it in some form. We don't have an efficient, cheap, safe means to store an entire country's energy supply ... except in fossil fuels. Nature has already stored it for us in an extremely convenient, cheap, safe form.

Do you have any idea what the impact would be on the environment to build the battery capacity to store the entire planet's ever-growing energy supply to overcome the intermittent problem? Do you realize how much resources and energy that would take? Do you realize how expensive that would make electricity, and in turn, every single thing that humans wish to do or buy? It would condemn everyone to poverty.

There's a reason why there is not a single "green" energy plant in the world with the storage capacity to store excess energy so that it doesn't require a fossil fuel back up.

[Cail]

I just want to clarify that you're 100% okay with the government picking and choosing which companies deserve some sort of tax relief.

I think I've made it clear that I'm not for picking winners/losers as a general policy. I favor across-the-board tax relief. I've said this. However, I've always been an advocate of trial-and-error. Try a solution, see if it works, and if it doesn't then try something else. Our government is notorious for continuing to implement failed "solutions" that have been proven not to work. Because of the longevity of government programs, I don't see anything wrong with a small-scale trial prior to implementing a general policy.

This is the difference between being a pragmatist and an idealist. I'm not 100% anything. I don't let contradiction stop me from doing what's smart. It *is* smart to prove an idea on a small scale and then scale up.

So you support it because Trump's done it. Gotcha. This is not tax relief, it's a sweetheart deal for one company that may or may not make any difference. It's picking winners and losers, and it's shitty policy.

What Trump did was give a payout of my money to a particular company in order to make himself look good.

He has already won the election. There's no need to "look good."

You'd think so, yet the idiot keeps tweeting away and pulling BS like this. And he's doing a victory tour like Obama did (which you were against at the time, now you're probably for).

He'll have an entire term of experience to run on in 2020, no one will remember Carrier. He is making his policies look good. He is building the political capital necessary to motivate those wimpy Republicans who are too timid to embrace their own ideas. He is going to move into the White House "hitting the ground running."

I'll remember Carrier because I'm not one of his drones. His policy of picking winners sucks, and I'll do my best to remind you of that fact.

That's why everyone is bending over backwards to find something negative to say about this, so that his bargaining position--his mandate to do what he promised--will be weakened. His opponents don't want him to succeed, so they must paint his successes as failures ... just as you are doing.

No bending here, this is bad policy which you were against when Obama did it.

If Trump makes it a habit to pick winners/losers individually, then I'll agree that it is crony capitalism. If he cuts corporate tax rates across the board, then this one example won't matter and will be quickly forgotten. As I pointed out, it's 0.28% of the tax cut coming to Carrier. It's insignificant, except as "proof of concept."

I can't even....


BTW, you might want to research solar power before you start making pronouncements. I've received a payment from my power company every month since I installed panels. I'll be putting up a small windmill to run my well pump this spring. Between the two, I'll never pay for electricity again.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think Zarathustra's main counterpoints to solar energy are its scalability and it making backup sources a necessity. Making your house not only energy independent but turning it into a microproducer is relatively easy and can be done relatively quickly; however, trying to convert even one small-sized city to solar would be a reasonably major infrastructure upgrade which would take months to complete (if not two or three years). The investment of time and money required would be worth it in the long run, to be certain, but actually doing it is something that most small cities could not afford without issuing bonds. On top of that, suppose that small town has a medical clinic with an ICU ward. The devices in that ward cannot fail for more than 30 seconds to 1 minute or people could die. On overcast days or at night trying to rely on diesel generators might not be sufficient, not when the clinic can stay connected to the grid coming from the natural gas plant.

In other words, he isn't against solar, per se, only against me promoting it so much. Again, in his defense, I am accentuating the positives and playing down the negatives--I wouldn't want to live in Ishpeming in December and hope to get by on my solar collection units. Here in Texas, though, yes, I could probably go completely solar all year long and not have many problems.

[Cail]

Oh I get it. Solar and wind will never be stand-alone solutions for society at large. Even for my house, I'm still hooked up to the grid and I have a 500-gallon propane tank, and a backup generator.

My point is that we could drastically reduce our usage of other energy sources by using wind and solar. For everything else, I'm all-in on nuclear.

[Zarathustra]

So you support it because Trump's done it. Gotcha. This is not tax relief, it's a sweetheart deal for one company that may or may not make any difference. It's picking winners and losers, and it's shitty policy.

If you'll look back at the TPP debates, I supported it (tentatively) despite the fact that both Hillary and Obama praised it. I've said that Trump is wrong about globalization. I think I've proven I'm not a partisan on this issue. It has nothing to do with the fact that Trump did it. I would praise any President who saved jobs by cutting taxes, even on a limited bases.

.... this is bad policy which you were against when Obama did it.

Obama didn't do this. There's a huge difference between saving 1000 jobs by letting a successful company keep more of its own money, and loaning other people's money, tax payer money (76 times more money than 7 million) to a failed company that couldn't pay back the loan, and then losing those 1100 jobs anyway. There's no comparison.

[Cail]

So you support it because Trump's done it. Gotcha. This is not tax relief, it's a sweetheart deal for one company that may or may not make any difference. It's picking winners and losers, and it's shitty policy.

If you'll look back at the TPP debates, I supported it (tentatively) despite the fact that both Hillary and Obama praised it. I've said that Trump is wrong about globalization. I think I've proven I'm not a partisan on this issue. It has nothing to do with the fact that Trump did it. I would praise any President who saved jobs by cutting taxes, even on a limited bases.

.... this is bad policy which you were against when Obama did it.

Obama didn't do this. There's a huge difference between saving 1000 jobs by letting a successful company keep more of its own money, and loaning other people's money, tax payer money (76 times more money than 7 million) to a failed company that couldn't pay back the loan, and then losing those 1100 jobs anyway. There's no comparison.

Unbelievable.

Trump hasn't cut taxes. He's picked one company and paid them off to keep a few jobs here. That's not economic policy, it's paying a bribe.

[Zarathustra]

I think Zarathustra's main counterpoints to solar energy are its scalability and it making backup sources a necessity. Making your house not only energy independent but turning it into a microproducer is relatively easy and can be done relatively quickly; however, trying to convert even one small-sized city to solar would be a reasonably major infrastructure upgrade which would take months to complete (if not two or three years). The investment of time and money required would be worth it in the long run, to be certain, but actually doing it is something that most small cities could not afford without issuing bonds.

Exactly!

On top of that, suppose that small town has a medical clinic with an ICU ward. The devices in that ward cannot fail for more than 30 seconds to 1 minute or people could die. On overcast days or at night trying to rely on diesel generators might not be sufficient, not when the clinic can stay connected to the grid coming from the natural gas plant.

Exactly! In the book written by the guy from my link above, THE MORAL CASE FOR FOSSIL FUELS (highly recommended!), he talks about African hospitals where they have to choose between keeping the ICU for newborns running, or the lights in surgery, due to intermittent power supply. The irony is that many of these places have had solar pushed on them by "caring" environmentalists who fear the developing world adopting fossil fuels like the rest of us.

There is no global warming catastrophe. Climate related deaths have dropped by 98% in the last 100 years. As our fossil fuel use has skyrocketed, so has our health, wealth, and ability to adapt to our environment. There is absolutely no need to even try solar. We need to use MORE fossil fuels, a lot more, in order to increase our standards of living and the standards of those less fortunate than we.

In other words, he isn't against solar, per se, only against me promoting it so much. Again, in his defense, I am accentuating the positives and playing down the negatives--I wouldn't want to live in Ishpeming in December and hope to get by on my solar collection units. Here in Texas, though, yes, I could probably go completely solar all year long and not have many problems.

Solar is a waste. Perhaps for individual use it eventually pays off the initial investment, but I'm very much against solar as a mythical alternative to the vastly superior solution we've already found: fossil fuels. There is nothing that will replace them until fusion (or if the greenies will let us build more fission plants). Fossil fuels are a modern miracle, making our very lives possible. If there was anything worthy of "worship" in this modern world, it should be fossil fuels! The gift of countless previous generations of organic life, stored solar energy, earth and sky and life and death all rolled up into the most amazing resource we've ever discovered. They are that amazing and wonderful ... but the Left has made them a mythical evil. It's a travesty. People just don't understand reality.

Seriously, read the book.

[Cail]

My position on AGW is well-known, so I won't go down that path again.

But "solar is a waste" is bullshit. Right now Germany's getting about a third of their electricity from wind, hydro, and solar.