Reply With Quote
I am really trying hard, why are you not giving me a chance?
I beg to differ. You are quite entertaining.
I am really trying hard, why are you not giving me a chance?
I agree.
I grossly overestimated his abilities. Silly me, I thought he understood the words he was using.
Overall it is the height of irony that someone who worships capitalism with a religious fanaticism doesn't seem to know the finer points of how it works, and a guy who he would say doesn't know economics does.
I understood all the words I use. I also do not worship capitalism but fully understand it and all of it's finer points. You haven't even read the basic material on the subject. You cited some re 's Internet post on a political ideology he never researched and tried to use it as an argument against the ideology, that is irony.
Those that claim they have an autism spectrum disorder shouldn't really call people re s. Especially considering that disorder is not known for grasping double entendres.
You are a re .
That's what a drug addict would say.
damn, I just read this last page and now yall are going to make me read this whole thread. WTF is going on?
Addict.damn, I just read this last page and now yall are going to make me read this whole thread. WTF is going on?
ok, I have caught up, before I look at the tables I want to take a shot at his calculation problems. Based on the extremely high estimates that he calculated, I imagine that he didn't take into account that those costs should be amoritized against the life of the solar panel, wind turbine, etc.
i.e. One doesn't depreciate the full cost of a capital expenditure in the year in which the expenditure was made, rather one does so against the expected life of said expenditure.
Am I right, or should I go look at the tables?
You got it mang.
DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!
Fuzzy pretty much got it first, but that is it.
If one were to look at the amount of solar, for example installed in 2011 and what is projected this year, you have a doubling of installed generative power.
That is a very significant first step in a lot of ways that will work on bringing costs down.
Meh.
Your mental limitations are in reading and just seeing what you want to see, and missing important concepts and contexts that make up deeper understanding of topics.
You skim and think you know everything.
(snark redacted)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-23-2012 at 08:36 AM.
I see you never did figure it out.
For anybody who wants to play the financial analysis game you can play along:
These two tables don't really mean much in terms of how much it cost the government per unit of energy ultimately produced.
--------------------------------------------------------
Give someone money in December of 2010, and it gets added to the dollars spent, but not to the ultimate power generated for that year, which is what you divided by.
PV power panels last 30-50 years. Amortize their costs over that, and you will end up with a better analysis than your basic division.
Real, meaningful, financial analysis takes a lot more than what you have done here.
It is one thing to not think goverment should be doing any subsidies.
It is an entirely different thing to misreprent true costs. Your mistake was not deliberate, so it isn't anything I could really fault you for. You just don't know any better.
At least try to get it right, and learn a bit from this. Your thinking on the subject is a bit limited by a rather marked bias, no offense.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-19-2012 at 11:08 PM. Reason: civility and winning the war against the lower self.
Further, all the discussion about rare earth metal reserves and if china controls it are also irrelevant details in the long run. R & D and simple market forces will make it so. Keep the prices high, and the units produced will go up. Supply and demand curves dictate that.
Honestly there are a number of disruptive technologies on the horizon that will change a lot of previously correct starting assumptions.
"solar only works during the day"
When you get power tower solar thermal at a utility scale using melted salts to store energy, you don't need any rare earths at all.
The first few prototypes are built, and that means the costs for the follow on units will fall, again, due to simple free market action. Learning curves and efficiencies of scale work wonders.
We are seeing the world change. All the wishing to get at hydrocarbons locked into rock beyond any economical extraction isn't going to make a difference in the long run.
By the time the technology becomes available to get at this stuff, humanity will no longer really need the hyrdocarbons.
To borrow from a good orator:
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
The age of oil will draw to a close. I think we will see the beginnings of that in the next decade or so.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-19-2012 at 11:14 PM. Reason: more civility
well I didn't know that it was a race or I would have been present when the race began. LOL
Don't forget, the MBA that I have almost completed is with a finance concentration. That was the first place my mind went when I saw 900 ing dollars. Still havent looked at the tables.
[Interesting observation how you are defending the sock puppet]
I do no such thing, nor do I skim anything. So far your assumption about subsidies being reduced has been found to be based on bull and so has your argument for levelized costs,
2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (EIA)
* The costs of wind and solar are inaccurate as do not reflect the fact that they are intermittent and require standby power generation.
* The coal numbers are imaginary as they are inflated for CO2 regulations that do not exist,
Oh wait, you did not think I researched this too?In the AEO2011 reference case, a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas intensive technologies such as coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology and coal-to-liquids plants. The 3-percentage point adjustment is similar to a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS technology. This adjustment represents the implicit hurdle being added to greenhouse gas intensive projects to account for the possibility that they may need to purchase allowances or invest in other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions in the future. Thus, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are likely higher than most current coal project costs.
Tech Support? I did that 20 years ago.
I was never able to read your mind, this is correct. If you stated your argument sooner I could have refuted it for you immediately so you did not have to go through two days of falsely believing you made a relevant point.
"Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."I was never able to read your mind, this is correct. If you stated your argument sooner I could have refuted it for you immediately so you did not have to go through two days of falsely believing you made a relevant point.
That is, in essence, what you said.
Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.
Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.
Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:
X/0
Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-23-2012 at 08:40 AM.
The tech support thing was a cheap shot.Tech Support? I did that 20 years ago.
Mohammed was once asked after winning a battle what the greatest battle he ever fought in was.
His reply is a bit of wisdom that I found to be fairly profound:
"the greatest war is the war against one's lower self" or something similar.
I am fairly sure your thinking on this subject is flawed, but that does not give me license to be an ass.
My apologies.
I didn't really assume any reductions, if I recall correctly.
I do remember reading some notes in one of your given pdf's that said the subsidies were being phased out, and I believe some of the credits for solar are set to expire, if not already happening. Have to research to be sure.
I also said:
I stated my opinion as to what should happen to the subsidies, which coincides ultimately with your own.
Saying you believe "they are at the point where they need less and less in the way of intervention," could be construed as an assumption -- one for which Poptech rightly points out there is no support.I didn't really assume any reductions, if I recall correctly.
I do remember reading some notes in one of your given pdf's that said the subsidies were being phased out, and I believe some of the credits for solar are set to expire, if not already happening. Have to research to be sure.
I also said:
I stated my opinion as to what should happen to the subsidies, which coincides ultimately with your own.
Just as your assumption the water for extracting all the oil out west will be available -- there is no support for it.
Manfucturing learning curves, R & D gains, and efficiencies of scale are all in operation for things like PV, especially.Renewables as a technology are maturing, and benefitting from efficencies of scale and manufacturing learning curves. I think they are at the point where they need less and less in the way of intervention.
These trends are rather long-term, and no analysis I have seen by anyone familiar with the research or the manufacturing end says it will change.
If you think it is "wishful thinking" to extrapolate such a long-term trend into the future, especially one based on some pretty solid analyst consensus, I guess that is your perogative.
Filtering out the "wouldn't it be great if" scenarios that represent real wishful thinking, from what reality and market forces dictates does take a lot of sifting though.
There is no small amount of breathless predictions about renewables replacing coal or oil completely, and this is non-sense.
FWIW, I think the EIA got a lot of things right in their most recent assessment.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/...83er(2012).pdf
It is worthwhile to note that one of the important cost components of coal as a fuel is:
The price of oil. Coal being a bulky, heavy thing to ship in large quan ies.
If you get a sustained rise in the price of oil, you get knock on effects in the cost of coal for power plants. Kind of a double whammy.
It isn't the only thing driving costs for coal, but it is somethign to bear in the back of your mind.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
