The Green Leap Forward

[The Conservative]

[Montegriffo]

They refuse to call out Antifia for what they are, a terrorist organization. What they don't say speaks volumes to what they truly are. And communists don't have any place in America.

There are a lot of un-named ''theys'' in your two and a half lines of drivel.
The irony of calling people terrorists when you've just talked about killing democratically elected politicians in the streets is something I'm sure you'll never understand though.

Only in your tiny little mind....

A perfect example.
Maybe you do understand irony after all.

[TheReal_ND]

This magatard boomer shit about being energy independent is a lie as well. Energy reserves are a global commodity. We are still pumping out gas with Saudi oil. Apparently they never run out. When they do gas is going to fucking skyrocket. No amount of fracking will change that.

Jesus Christ, my takeaway from the article is that if installing unsubsidized solar & wind is cheaper than building a gas plant, who gives a fuck whether there is more gas in the ground or not!
And if what they say is true at today's gas prices, it's even more true when gas moves up from it's ridiculously low current price. Possibly keeping the oceans from boiling is merely a nice side benefit.

Working in a refinery doesn't mean you know fuck all about the relative energy markets. if I mop the floor in the hospital it doesn't mean I know anything about brain surgery!

Is working in two dozen refineries at your age normal for the industry or can't you hold a job?

My dad is the president of Exxon, peasant.

[The Conservative]

This magatard boomer shit about being energy independent is a lie as well. Energy reserves are a global commodity. We are still pumping out gas with Saudi oil. Apparently they never run out. When they do gas is going to fucking skyrocket. No amount of fracking will change that.

Jesus Christ, my takeaway from the article is that if installing unsubsidized solar & wind is cheaper than building a gas plant, who gives a fuck whether there is more gas in the ground or not!
And if what they say is true at today's gas prices, it's even more true when gas moves up from it's ridiculously low current price. Possibly keeping the oceans from boiling is merely a nice side benefit.

Working in a refinery doesn't mean you know fuck all about the relative energy markets. if I mop the floor in the hospital it doesn't mean I know anything about brain surgery!

Is working in two dozen refineries at your age normal for the industry or can't you hold a job?

The article is missing several things, which I will lead by asking the questions which should have been answered in the article, but weren't.

1. How much will it cost to replace the batteries that are used to store the energy.
2. How often do you need to replace the solar tech to keep at that 10% rate?
3. What is the difference between Solar and Gas when it comes to long term cost vs return?
4. If solar is so cheap, why are we subsidizing it?
5. Can we build the solar cells in the US to reduce the cost for Importing to the US from China which is the world's largest producer of solar cells (not always best quality either)
6. If gas is such a bad investment, why are we doing so?

[brewster]

This magatard boomer shit about being energy independent is a lie as well. Energy reserves are a global commodity. We are still pumping out gas with Saudi oil. Apparently they never run out. When they do gas is going to fucking skyrocket. No amount of fracking will change that.

Jesus Christ, my takeaway from the article is that if installing unsubsidized solar & wind is cheaper than building a gas plant, who gives a fuck whether there is more gas in the ground or not!
And if what they say is true at today's gas prices, it's even more true when gas moves up from it's ridiculously low current price. Possibly keeping the oceans from boiling is merely a nice side benefit.

Working in a refinery doesn't mean you know fuck all about the relative energy markets. if I mop the floor in the hospital it doesn't mean I know anything about brain surgery!

Is working in two dozen refineries at your age normal for the industry or can't you hold a job?

The article is missing several things, which I will lead by asking the questions which should have been answered in the article, but weren't.

1. How much will it cost to replace the batteries that are used to store the energy.
2. How often do you need to replace the solar tech to keep at that 10% rate?
3. What is the difference between Solar and Gas when it comes to long term cost vs return?
4. If solar is so cheap, why are we subsidizing it?
5. Can we build the solar cells in the US to reduce the cost for Importing to the US from China which is the world's largest producer of solar cells (not always best quality either)
6. If gas is such a bad investment, why are we doing so?

You must assume the analysts who wrote the report are incompetent to believe they did not account for equipment maintenance of either system, and it clearly specifies the comparison is long term not just short term, which would be ridiculous given that gas requires fuel and alternative does not though it has higher capitalization. As for 4 & 6, this is a rapidly changing market, as they clearly say.

[The Conservative]

Jesus Christ, my takeaway from the article is that if installing unsubsidized solar & wind is cheaper than building a gas plant, who gives a fuck whether there is more gas in the ground or not!
And if what they say is true at today's gas prices, it's even more true when gas moves up from it's ridiculously low current price. Possibly keeping the oceans from boiling is merely a nice side benefit.

Working in a refinery doesn't mean you know fuck all about the relative energy markets. if I mop the floor in the hospital it doesn't mean I know anything about brain surgery!

Is working in two dozen refineries at your age normal for the industry or can't you hold a job?

The article is missing several things, which I will lead by asking the questions which should have been answered in the article, but weren't.

1. How much will it cost to replace the batteries that are used to store the energy.
2. How often do you need to replace the solar tech to keep at that 10% rate?
3. What is the difference between Solar and Gas when it comes to long term cost vs return?
4. If solar is so cheap, why are we subsidizing it?
5. Can we build the solar cells in the US to reduce the cost for Importing to the US from China which is the world's largest producer of solar cells (not always best quality either)
6. If gas is such a bad investment, why are we doing so?

You must assume the analysts who wrote the report are incompetent to believe they did not account for equipment maintenance of either system, and it clearly specifies the comparison is long term not just short term, which would be ridiculous given that gas requires fuel and alternative does not though it has higher capitalization. As for 4 & 6, this is a rapidly changing market, as they clearly say.

Do I think any person who writes an article based off of "magic numbers" didn't account for equipment maintenance? I sure in hell do.

Sorry, but any agency that can pull data from 20+ years ago is pulling it off of data that can't be verified anymore because it was destroyed and was never archived. That on its face is bad practice, and no one worth their salt would ever be able to get a doctorates thesis passed with that kind of shoddy work. Why should we accept people who right now are no better than charlatans that are looking for the next best quick buck and be the next Al Gore... making millions off of hype.

[brewster]

Do I think any person who writes an article based off of "magic numbers" didn't account for equipment maintenance? I sure in hell do.

Sorry, but any agency that can pull data from 20+ years ago is pulling it off of data that can't be verified anymore because it was destroyed and was never archived. That on its face is bad practice, and no one worth their salt would ever be able to get a doctorates thesis passed with that kind of shoddy work. Why should we accept people who right now are no better than charlatans that are looking for the next best quick buck and be the next Al Gore... making millions off of hype.

Why don't you quote exactly what you're talking about because I have no idea what it is. Did you read the Lazard report on which much of it was based? Page 13 lays out the methodology. They're money people, not social agenda people. Https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/laz ... vfinal.pdf

In this analysis, Lazard’s approach was to determine the LCOE, on a $/MWh basis, that would provide an after-tax IRR to equity holders equal
to an assumed cost of equity capital. Certain assumptions (e.g., required debt and equity returns, capital structure, etc.) were identical for all
technologies in order to isolate the effects of key differentiated inputs such as investment costs, capacity factors, operating costs, fuel costs
(where relevant) and other important metrics on the LCOE. These inputs were originally developed with a leading consulting and engineering
firm to the Power & Energy Industry, augmented with Lazard’s commercial knowledge where relevant. This analysis (as well as previous
versions) has benefited from additional input from a wide variety of Industry participants.
Lazard has not manipulated capital costs or capital structure for various technologies, as the goal of the study was to compare the current
state of various generation technologies, rather than the benefits of financial engineering. The results contained in this study would be altered
by different assumptions regarding capital structure (e.g., increased use of leverage) or capital costs (e.g., a willingness to accept lower
returns than those assumed herein).
Key sensitivities examined included fuel costs and tax subsidies. Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results
contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include:
import tariffs; capacity value vs. energy value; stranded costs related to distributed generation or otherwise; network upgrade, transmission,
congestion or other integration-related costs; significant permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of
complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis also does not
address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot
afford distribution generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation
technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., nuclear waste disposal, airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc.).

To believe they really forgot to include maintenance says a lot about your belief that you're smarter that anyone else. You're not.

[The Conservative]

Do I think any person who writes an article based off of "magic numbers" didn't account for equipment maintenance? I sure in hell do.

Sorry, but any agency that can pull data from 20+ years ago is pulling it off of data that can't be verified anymore because it was destroyed and was never archived. That on its face is bad practice, and no one worth their salt would ever be able to get a doctorates thesis passed with that kind of shoddy work. Why should we accept people who right now are no better than charlatans that are looking for the next best quick buck and be the next Al Gore... making millions off of hype.

Why don't you quote exactly what you're talking about because I have no idea what it is. Did you read the Lazard report on which much of it was based? Page 13 lays out the methodology. They're money people, not social agenda people. Https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/laz ... vfinal.pdf

In this analysis, Lazard’s approach was to determine the LCOE, on a $/MWh basis, that would provide an after-tax IRR to equity holders equal
to an assumed cost of equity capital. Certain assumptions (e.g., required debt and equity returns, capital structure, etc.) were identical for all
technologies in order to isolate the effects of key differentiated inputs such as investment costs, capacity factors, operating costs, fuel costs
(where relevant) and other important metrics on the LCOE. These inputs were originally developed with a leading consulting and engineering
firm to the Power & Energy Industry, augmented with Lazard’s commercial knowledge where relevant. This analysis (as well as previous
versions) has benefited from additional input from a wide variety of Industry participants.
Lazard has not manipulated capital costs or capital structure for various technologies, as the goal of the study was to compare the current
state of various generation technologies, rather than the benefits of financial engineering. The results contained in this study would be altered
by different assumptions regarding capital structure (e.g., increased use of leverage) or capital costs (e.g., a willingness to accept lower
returns than those assumed herein).
Key sensitivities examined included fuel costs and tax subsidies. Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results
contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis.These additional factors, among others, could include:
import tariffs; capacity value vs. energy value; stranded costs related to distributed generation or otherwise; network upgrade, transmission,
congestion or other integration-related costs; significant permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of
complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis also does not
address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot
afford distribution generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation
technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., nuclear waste disposal, airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc.).

To believe they really forgot to include maintenance says a lot about your belief that you're smarter that anyone else. You're not.

I bolded the parts that matter. Because they are nearly everything I asked, which means they weren’t taken into consideration.

And yes, I am smarter than most, and know full well when research is slanted. Because the fact it didn’t define specific aspects means the research was looking at only one aspect of the whole picture.

Studies like this are dangerous.

[Montegriffo]

Studies like this are dangerous.

The rallying cry of the science denier throughout history.

[The Conservative]

Studies like this are dangerous.

The rallying cry of the science denier throughout history.

No, they are dangerous because they cherry pick data to prove a point, instead of letting the facts tell the full story, any idiot that went to school and learned the scientific method would understand that.