You can say that as many times as you want, but it isn't going to stick. The relevant measure of speed of deployment to a thread about global warming is the rate at which overall reliance on renewables is proceeding. That should be obvious. If you aren't addressing that - and mere quantity of installation in absolute terms pointedly does not address that, as you repeatedly admit - then you are going off topic, persistently and in direct refusal of repeated good-faith attempts by others to keep the interaction on-topic. Can you give me one serious reason we should care about what the rate of installation of renewable facilities is, independent of its impact on overall reliance on renewable energy, in the context of a thread on energy policy as it relates to climate change? Because the only rationale I can see for your line here is that you harbor some overriding need to feel that you are correct and iceaura is wrong, regardless of the relevance. This seems to be all about your ego. And which you have now spent many pages pointedly refusing to address in any meaningful way, preferring instead to obfuscate the issue and beat your chest over irrelevancies. Looks for all the world like a tactic: shotgun pages of bullshit everywhere to distract from points you don't want to address. Then you are agreeing that said pace - "fast as they could" or otherwise - is "far too slow" in the sense relevant to the thread topic (climate change). Why you won't simply aknowledge this plain fact and drop the energetic distraction is the question, at this point. I guess because it would require conceding that iceaura has a point, and you don't? And so the rate of installation, in the relevant terms, is "slow." I've covered this before - why do you think you can avoid admitting error via these unilateral declarations that we're talking about something other than what we obviously are? You aren't even attempting to challenge the rationale I've provided as to why the relevant measure of deployment rate is impact on fossil fuel reliance; you're just running a broken-record line of naked counter-assertion. Which is pretty clearly a bad-faith mode of engagement. That the USA may not be going slow if measured in some way that is irrelevant to the thread topic is irrelevant to the thread topic. Harping on it for multiple pages doesn't make you correct - it makes you a troll. Everyone gets what you're saying, and knows exactly what you have and have not said. Repeating yourself is not a meaningful response. Asked and answered several times, in this post and multiple previous ones, already. If you don't have a good-faith response to that, then stop making bad-faith responses. Unless it were heavily subsidized, you mean. Which it is. Actually, I'm not even positive that ethanol does cost less than the relevant fossil fuels, even with the subsidies (it's as much stuff like coal and natural gas going into the ethanol, as oil). That issue is totally irrelevant to the thread topic, and nobody other than yourself has endorsed it as "the issue." That means it isn't "the issue," but a distracting irrelevancy that you are determined to pursue, thereby driving the thread off-topic. These are not the tactics used in good-faith engagement. So, since you are determined to transform a debate about energy policy as it relates to climate change, into a debate about installation of certain capacities independent of their impact on fossil fuel reliance, you are in flagrant violation of your first rule, there. I eagerly anticipate your self-application of appropriate sanctions for this grevious, ongoing violation.