You're a sensitive soul if you consider that a personal attack. I wonder how you'd react to something that was actually a personal attack. And cue the "religion" talking point. While I will concede that religion is largely ridiculous, don't you find any irony in the fact that Denialism is largely a product of religion? I don't believe for a moment that you're supportive of anything that doesn't involve combustion, continuous extraction and destruction, and a captive audience made reliant on a tiny part of the population for basic energy needs. And as in all of our exchanges, you refuse to acknowledge all of the costs of fossil fuels. How much does it cost to mitigate and treat the destruction, poisons, and toxins spread throughout society so that energy can be kept artificially cheap and a handful of robber barons can remain financially superior to the masses? Which loan are you talking about? I'll guess that the massive Ford loan will be. I'll also guess that the vast majority of all of the others will be too. I'll guess that the loans as a whole will outperform any bank's comparable loan package. You are the one who threw out the Solyndra talking point. I even added Abound to help out. Solyndra was $500M out of many billions. Nuclear and Ford got over $16B between the two of them. That was more than all others combined. In comparison, the investment in real renewables is a paltry sum compared to other countries who will own future energy markets if the blinders don't come off here soon. All energy policy is political cronyism and only someone entrenched in one particular part of it would deny it. Why didn't the elimination (or even reduction) of oil and gas subsidies make it into the Energy and Independence Act of 2007? It was after all one of the key recommendations. And they fail to get axed time and time again. Ideally subsidies go towards otherwise worthy endeavors that can't survive on their own, which is what the recommendation "reminded" Congress about. But cronies also typically don't get made to play by the rules. And that goes for O and his amateurish "all of the above" nonsense and money-throwing at predominantly fossil-fuel cronies. And his low-bar CO2 rules. But back to your original point about $2.11-equivalent NG versus non-fossil fuels. As you know, NG is essentially just another fossil fuel when the society-wide cost is acknowledged. It still requires massive infrastructure, ownership by a few and subjugation of the many, and commitment that can't be turned around for decades. Then of course there is the $2.11 part. Will that ever change? Is it likely to become more, or less, over the long haul? If you ever get out of the fire, don't jump into the vat of acid.