You still don't get it. When you do a cost benefit analysis you have to look at DIFFERENCES, not those elements that are the same for each option.
Sun, wind, horses, and trees all need power plants. So eliminate the power plants from the cost benefit analysis as a simplifying assumption. Now what is the difference? As an input into the power plant, sun and wind are free. But you have to buy lumber and horses to input them into your power plant. So sun and wind meet the first criteria for renewable energy, but lumber and horses do not. Next sun and wind are virtually limitless, but trees and horses are not. So sun and wind meet the next criteria for renewable and trees and horses do not.
Quit being obtuse. The longer this particular conversation goes on the more credibility you lose. You know, you bring up a lot of good points, but your biggest failing as a debater is your complete lack of willingness to concede even one small point, even when you know you are wrong. Master negotiators and debaters cede some points, especially those that make no difference to their end goal, and fight hard for others, in order to maintain the semblance of reasonableness. Your mind is shut so tight that you won't even cede a point you know you are wrong in and makes no difference to your end goal. You have some serious issues. You must drive your wife crazy. I bet you've never apologized for one thing in your life. |
