Why I think Hydrocarbon Denial is little more than pseudoscience. [Archive]

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 10:51 PM

And, compared to green energy?

I'd put my money on the petroleum industry achieving a reasonable EROI on shale oil long before any (or all combined) green energies ever come close to supplanting our needs.

Compared to green energy, shale oil energy sucks.

Sorry.

Let's look at the key challenges, unchanged in the last 100 years.

Since you posted the blog about the GAO report:

Our October 2010 report also found, however, that there are a number of
key challenges associated with potential oil shale development in the
United States, including: (1) uncertainty about viable technologies, (2)
environmental impacts that affect water quantity and quality, air, and land,
and (3) socioeconomic impacts.

Uncertainty about viable technologies. A significant challenge to the
development of oil shale lies in the uncertainty surrounding the
viability of current technologies to economically extract oil from oil
shale. To extract the oil, the rock needs to be heated to very high
temperatures—ranging from about 650 to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit—
in a process known as retorting.

If you think that physics is going to roll over and take a nap while your magic cheap energy just pops out, you need to tell me what technology is in the pipeline that is going to do that.

What technology under development is going to overcome the really bad EROI?

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 10:54 PM

Water quantity. Oil shale development could have significant
impacts on the quantity of surface and groundwater resources, but
the magnitude of these impacts is unknown because of the
technological uncertainties, and also because the size of a future
oil shale industry is unknown, and knowledge of current water
conditions and groundwater flow is limited. Developing oil shale
and providing power for oil shale operations and other associated
activities will require significant amounts of water, which could
pose problems, particularly in the arid West where an expanding
population is already placing additional demands on available
water resources.

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 10:56 PM

To prepare for possible impacts from the potential future development of
oil shale, which industry experts believe is at least 15-20 years away,

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 10:58 PM

Magic technology will appear to make the uneconomical oily rocks suddenly economical, and magic new water supplies will pop up in an arid west...

some analysts project that large
scale oil shale development within Colorado could require more
water than is currently supplied to over 1 million residents of the
Denver metro area and that water diverted for oil shale operations
would restrict agricultural and urban development. The potential
demand for water is further complicated by the past decade of
drought in the West

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 11:00 PM

Once you over come the non-existant technologies, a lack of water supplies, unknown environemental damage, in 15-20 years, it might be a huge source of energy.

That's what you are going with?

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 11:02 PM

Here is the GAO report that your happy fun blog linked that is the source of the information:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/HHRG-112-%20SY20-WState-AMittal-20120510.pdf

Wild Cobra

05-15-2012, 11:12 PM

Random, would you please stop yelling.

It's hard to make out words when they are so incoherent.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/randomyell.jpg

MannyIsGod

05-15-2012, 11:29 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-15-2012, 11:34 PM

Energy independence is the agenda.

What's your alternative?

As it stands, it is more profitable for the refineries to sell the excess petrol to europe than it is to sell here in the states. I suppose once they sufficiently saturate the market in Europe then it will actually effect the price of domestic supply but as has been pointed out this has nothing to do with domestic oil.

As for the solar versus oil agenda, I personally do not like the notion of just ceding the solar industry to China. Not at all.

San Antonio is building the biggest one in the world.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/01/12/massive-solar-project-announced-for-san-antonio/

January 12, 2012 | 11:22 AM
By Terrence Henry

Mose Buchele / StateImpact Texas

Just days after the ribbon was cut on the largest solar farm in Texas outside Austin, San Antonio has announced a new solar project that would dwarf its neighbor to the North: a 400 megawatt solar project that would be twice as large as any solar farm currently runningin the world.

What is your take on the subsidies such as the pipeline for the oil industry? You just such a fan of oil that your cool with the money from every level of government they get?

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 11:34 PM

Random, would you please stop yelling.

It's hard to make out words when they are so incoherent.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/randomyell.jpg

A significant challenge to the
development of oil shale lies in the uncertainty surrounding the
viability of current technologies to economically extract oil from oil
shale.

Developing oil shale
and providing power for oil shale operations and other associated
activities will require significant amounts of water, which could
pose problems, particularly in the arid West where an expanding
population is already placing additional demands on available
water resources

some analysts project that large
scale oil shale development within Colorado could require more
water than is currently supplied to over 1 million residents of the
Denver metro area and that water diverted for oil shale operations
would restrict agricultural and urban development. The potential
demand for water is further complicated by the past decade of
drought in the West

Yoni seemed to have missed the rather important parts. I wanted to eliminate the possibility that he misplaced his glasses and couldn't read them.

Do you understand the implications of those two rather important paragraphs that got left out of the blog post in the OP?

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 11:38 PM

Good luck getting the water for the extraction in the west. Water here is already the biggest problem to the region and all the water in the region heads out west to basically keep Las Vegas and Phoenix from turning into ghost towns. The reservoirs out west are already losing capacity due to filling up with silt and when you add in higher temperatures from global warming you're also going to lose a lot more to evaporation (which is already incredibly high - who would think a lake with a large surface area in the desert would lose a lot of water to evaporation?!?!?!?).

On the other hand, out west Solar IS viable as hell. Not to mention being buffered with wind energy. The wind farms out in the west are huge. Solar energy is increasing in efficiency at an exponential rate and dropping in price while oil increases in price. So yes, actually. Compared to green energy it really makes little sense to develop oil shales as these. I know that you may find that hard to believe, but its the absolute reality.

Yup.

The only thing the OP demonstrated is that Yoni doesn't understand economics.

Bloodly ironic, isn't it?

RandomGuy

05-15-2012, 11:40 PM

Random, would you please stop yelling.

It's hard to make out words when they are so incoherent.

How much government money do you think we should spend on shale oil?

Wild Cobra

05-15-2012, 11:42 PM

A significant challenge to the
development of oil shale lies in the uncertainty surrounding the
viability of current technologies to economically extract oil from oil
shale.

Developing oil shale
and providing power for oil shale operations and other associated
activities will require significant amounts of water, which could
pose problems, particularly in the arid West where an expanding
population is already placing additional demands on available
water resources

some analysts project that large
scale oil shale development within Colorado could require more
water than is currently supplied to over 1 million residents of the
Denver metro area and that water diverted for oil shale operations
would restrict agricultural and urban development. The potential
demand for water is further complicated by the past decade of
drought in the West

Yoni seemed to have missed the rather important parts. I wanted to eliminate the possibility that he misplaced his glasses and couldn't read them.

Do you understand the implications of those two rather important paragraphs that got left out of the blog post in the OP?
Yes, I understand. Water is also important for ethanol. Would you agree now that ethanol has a mandated, captive market, that all subsidies should be removed?

My point was that yelling doesn't help, and in the way this forum structure deals with some text, makes it worse. You too often use words that are literally too big to understand. Maybe your browser deals with them differently than mine, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that you are making this hard on.

MannyIsGod

05-16-2012, 12:02 AM

http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2011/06/11/solar-power-trends/

I've been saying this on this website for years. The trend is there. Its exponential growth.

MannyIsGod

05-16-2012, 12:07 AM

Not to mention, how many power plants run off of oil?

boutons_deux

05-16-2012, 05:25 AM

And the financial sector, even with the high returns in their rigged casino, is financing solar and wind projects.

Loser Yoni on the ideological, environmental wrong side of history, as always.

With just the announced financing, insurance being hard to find, nuclear still is shit:

Nearly $1 Billion in Vogtle Nuclear Reactor Overruns (So Far) — Who’s Surprised?

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/14/nearly-1-billion-in-vogtle-nuclear-reactor-overruns-so-far-whos-surprised/

Carbon-addicted TX is fucking up its solar resource, no surprise there, with no policies for time-of-day metering and feed-in tariffs to Let A Million Rooftops Bloom.

RandomGuy

05-16-2012, 06:42 AM

hard on.

hehehehehehehehehehehehe

RandomGuy

05-16-2012, 06:48 AM

http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2011/06/11/solar-power-trends/

I've been saying this on this website for years. The trend is there. Its exponential growth.

The author there uses the BP statistical analysis of global energy.

http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481

fascinating.

Lots of interesting long term trends there.

Strange, they don't talk about shale oil.

boutons_deux

05-16-2012, 06:49 AM

GOP Wants To U.S. NAVY To Stop Buying Biofuels

Secretary of the U.S. Navy, addressed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in early March, he illustrated the expensive challenge of protecting the open seas on vehicles powered only by fossil fuels.

“Both the Navy and the Marine Corps must use energy more efficiently and we must lead in the development of alternative energy,” he stated [PDF] in that address, “otherwise, we put at risk our military readiness, we put at risk our national security, we put at risk the lives of our Sailors and Marines.”

the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee voted to prohibit the Defense Department from buying any alternative fuels that cost more than fossil fuels (all of them) and to repeal part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that has been the catalyst for efforts to wean the country off petroleum

http://www.care2.com/causes/gop-wants-to-u-s-navy-to-stop-buying-biofuels.html#ixzz1v24x23tW

Poptech

05-16-2012, 08:02 PM

Look up EROI
Maybe you should,

Thermodynamics and Money (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/1031/122.html) (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)

In his day M. King Hubbert was a great geologist who spent his life studying the planet's deposits of oil and gas. But as he got older, he simply lost it. His "peak oil" theory--which many people are citing these days--is a case study in junk economics.

Hubbert was born in 1903. By 1949 he had concluded that the fossil-fuel era was going to end, and quite soon. Global production would peak around 2000, he predicted, and would decline inexorably thereafter. By 1980 the aging Hubbert was certain that the impending crisis "was unique to both human and geologic history.… You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered." Indeed we would soon be forced to abandon our entire "monetary culture," replacing it with an accounting tied to "matter-energy" constraints. An editor of Geophysics magazine summarized Hubbert's views in 1983: "The science of matter-energy and the historic system of finance are incompatible."

Today this same nonsense is often dressed up with numbers in an analysis that's dubbed "energy return on energy invested" (Eroei). According to this theory it can never make sense to burn two units of energy in order to extract one unit of energy. The Eroei crowd concedes, for example, that the world has centuries' worth of junk oil in shale and tar sands--but they can also prove it's irrelevant. It takes more energy to cook this kind of oil out of the dirt, they argue, than you end up with in the recovered oil. And a negative Eroei can only mean energy bankruptcy. The more such energy investments we make, the faster things will grind to a halt.

Eroei calculations now litter the energy policy debate. Time and again they're wheeled out to explain why one form of energy just can't win--tar sands, shale, corn, wood, wind, you name it. Even quite serious journals--Science, for example--have published pieces along these lines. Energy-based books of account have just got to show a profit. In the real world, however, investors don't care a fig whether they earn positive Eroei. What they care about is dollar return on dollar invested. And the two aren't the same--nowhere close--because different forms of energy command wildly different prices. Invest ten units of 10-cent energy to capture one unit of $10 energy and you lose energy but gain dollars, and Wall Street will fund you from here to Alberta.

As it happens, the people extracting oil out of tar sands today use gas from the fields themselves to power their refineries. There's gas, too, under what has been called Alberta's "trillion- barrel tar pit," but it's cheap because there's no pipeline to deliver it to where it would be worth more. As an alternative to gas, Total S.A., the French oil giant, is thinking about building a nuclear power plant to supply heat to melt and crack the tar. But nuclear reactors extract only a minuscule fraction of the energy locked up in the nuclei of uranium atoms; all the rest gets discarded as "waste." On Eroei logic, uranium would never be used to generate either electricity or heat. But per unit of raw stored energy, uranium is a thousand times cheaper than oil.

Greens touting the virtues of biomass as a source of energy rarely note that almost all of it is used by lumber mills burning branches and sawdust on site. No one cares how much energy the sun "invested" to grow all that waste wood. And every electric power plant, whatever it's fueled with, runs a huge Eroei deficit, transforming five units of cheap, raw heat into two units of electrical energy. But it all works out because the market values the energy in electricity at about 30 times the energy in coal.

The economic value of energy just doesn't depend very strongly on raw energy content as conventionally measured in British thermal units. Instead it's determined mainly by the distance between the BTUs and where you need them, and how densely the BTUs are packed into pounds of stuff you've got to move, and by the quality of the technology at hand to move, concentrate, refine and burn those BTUs, and by how your neighbors feel about carbon, uranium and windmills. In this entropic universe we occupy, the production of one unit of high-grade energy always requires more than one unit of low-grade energy at the outset. There are no exceptions. Put another way, Eroei--a sophomoric form of thermodynamic accounting--is always negative and always irrelevant. "Matter-energy" constraints count for nothing. The "monetary culture" still rules. Thermodynamics And Money.

Yonivore

05-16-2012, 08:31 PM

Once you over come the non-existant technologies, a lack of water supplies, unknown environemental damage, in 15-20 years, it might be a huge source of energy.

That's what you are going with?
In 15-20 years, where are green energy sources going to be?

Yeah, I thought so.

Poptech

05-16-2012, 08:32 PM

hucksters have been pushing this idea for as long as I can remember.

The technology to get at this magic energy is always just around the corner...
There is nothing magical about "Hydraulic Fracking" it is a market based solution to rising energy prices.

Poptech

05-16-2012, 08:37 PM

Good luck getting the water for the extraction in the west. Water here is already the biggest problem to the region and all the water in the region heads out west to basically keep Las Vegas and Phoenix from turning into ghost towns. The reservoirs out west are already losing capacity due to filling up with silt and when you add in higher temperatures from global warming you're also going to lose a lot more to evaporation (which is already incredibly high - who would think a lake with a large surface area in the desert would lose a lot of water to evaporation?!?!?!?).
Are you saying the government is incapable of properly managing water resources? I've been making this argument for years.

On the other hand, out west Solar IS viable as hell. Not to mention being buffered with wind energy. The wind farms out in the west are huge. Solar energy is increasing in efficiency at an exponential rate and dropping in price while oil increases in price. So yes, actually. Compared to green energy it really makes little sense to develop oil shales as these. I know that you may find that hard to believe, but its the absolute reality.
Total lie, without subsidies solar and wind would not even exist,

Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf) (PDF) (pg xvi) (EIA)

Natural Gas - $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind - $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar - $24.34 per megawatt hour

MannyIsGod

05-16-2012, 08:41 PM

In 15-20 years, where are green energy sources going to be?

Yeah, I thought so.

Really? Tell me, what are the trends in Solar regarding efficiency and cost? Where will those trends carry them in 15-20 years?

Do you take joy out of being incredibly wrong?

Poptech

05-16-2012, 08:42 PM

The only thing the OP demonstrated is that Yoni doesn't understand economics.
:lmao

Wild Cobra

05-16-2012, 08:48 PM

Are you saying the government is incapable of properly managing water resources?

Total lie, without subsidies solar and wind would not even exist,

Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf) (PDF) (pg16) (EIA)

Natural Gas - $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind - $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar - $24.34 per megawatt hour
I wonder how much of the $174 million subsidy for hydroelectric is maintaining the Pacific DC Intertie, to supply Los Angeles with power from dams on the Columbia River, since hydroelectric power itself needs no subsidies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Pacific_intertie_geographic_map.png/309px-Pacific_intertie_geographic_map.png

Poptech

05-16-2012, 08:49 PM

Not to mention, how many power plants run off of oil?
Almost none,

0.9% of the United States electrical generation comes from oil (EIA (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0802a)) (45% Coal, 24% Natural Gas, 20% Nuclear, 6% Hydroelectric, 2% Wind, 0.03% Solar)

This is why you effectively have two separate energy sectors,

1. Electrical Generation (Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear)
2. Transportation Fuels (Oil)

Nothing is more economically viable as a transportation fuel than oil.

Wild Cobra

05-16-2012, 08:54 PM

Nothing is more economically viable as a transportation fuel than oil.
Well, if the hunters would stop killing the monster squirrels, we could use squirrel cages and put them under the hood. We could just pick cherries for the fuel.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WeIM2oysmio/TO87QxkvfVI/AAAAAAAABDA/8RlF7-l52TA/s1600/giant-squirrel.jpg (http://powermacros.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html)

FuzzyLumpkins

05-16-2012, 09:07 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/solar-energy-costs-may-already-rival-coal-spurring-installation-boom.html

Now about the cost trends atm.

MannyIsGod

05-16-2012, 10:14 PM

In 15-20 years, where are green energy sources going to be?

Yeah, I thought so.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/solar-energy-costs-may-already-rival-coal-spurring-installation-boom.html

Now about the cost trends atm.

Willfully ignorant?

Wild Cobra

05-16-2012, 10:44 PM

Willfully ignorant?
LOL...

Fuzzy's link is speculation of years out, and even points to the equatorial regions.

What about the southwest, where solar energy isn't as direct?

RandomGuy

05-16-2012, 10:54 PM

Maybe you should,

Thermodynamics and Money (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/1031/122.html) (, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)

I see you have something new to contribute.

EROI is a rough guide that helps in conceptualizing energy and how it relates to potential returns.

Energy is, to some extent, money.

They are interchangible in that when you use energy, you are either purchasing it, or, as the good prof points out, consuming what you have produced as opposed to selling it. Both are economic costs.

I have never heard anyone claim that tar sands offer a negative EROI, as the professor claims "they" say.

Neither is the professor correct about what is commonly held as EROI on nuclear.

Both statements seem somewhat oddly inaccurate for a guy with a PhD in Mechanical engineering, but hey, I can roll with it, as he does make some cogent points that should be made in any consideration of energy and money.

What matters ultimately is cost per unit produced, and how much energy it takes to get that energy to the point at which it is useful.

One thing that got glossed over here, is the fact that the oil produced is the heavy, sulphurous kind. This takes more energy/money to refine than sweet cruide and this is why sour crude oils command less money in the open market.

Another thing that he does point out is important is getting energy to where it needs to go.

Tar sands require massive infrastructure projects in terms of pipelines, and additional specialty refinery capacity. (not all refineries are set up to process it)

Topping this off are the negative externalities of pollution, and water consumption. both of which drag down the profitabilty of tar sands.

Canada has just begun the proces of the strip mining necessary to get at this, but again, there is another energy/cost, and this cost is an ongoing one.

I don't object to it per se, as long as it is done responsibly and economically. From a profitability standpoint, I'm not sure it is going to be profitable over the long term for a variety of reasons. It has some rather concrete drawbacks that I don't think have been fully encapsulated yet.

RandomGuy

05-16-2012, 10:58 PM

There is nothing magical about "Hydraulic Fracking" it is a market based solution to rising energy prices.

The OP isn't about hydraulic fracking.

It is about strip mining, crushing, and boiling vast quantities of shale rock.

Not all shale oil/gas is suitable to current fracking techniques either.

There is a reason there aren't any investors lining up to do this.

You didn't really read the GOA report or note the excerpts I posted did you?

RandomGuy

05-16-2012, 11:07 PM

Are you saying the government is incapable of properly managing water resources? I've been making this argument for years.

Total lie, without subsidies solar and wind would not even exist,

Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf) (PDF) (pg16) (EIA)

Natural Gas - $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind - $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar - $24.34 per megawatt hour

Solar and wind would exist without subsidies, but not to the extent they do. Like any technology and energy source, they require infrastructure investments to get the ball rolling. This is what governments do for any industry, oil, coal, and natgas included in the past.

Let's round out our understanding for this bit with some important context you seem to have missed.

The differences between rankings of subsidies and support based on absolute amounts
and amounts per megawatthour are driven by substantial differences in the amount of
electricity generation across fuels. Capital-intensive, baseload generating technologies,
such as coal-fired steam generators and nuclear generators, together produce about 70
percent of total net generation,4 which tends to reduce their subsidies and support per unit of
production compared to the other fuel groups (Table ES5). For the same reason, electricity
subsidies for solar and wind show a relatively large subsidy per unit of production, as these
groups account for less than 1 percent of total net generation in the country. It is important to
recognize that the subsidies-per-megawatthour calculations are a snapshot taken at a particular
point in time. Some electricity sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas, have
received varying levels of subsidies and support in the past which may have aided them in
reaching their current role in electricity production.5 The impacts of prior subsidies, some of
which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the current analysis

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, those figures for subsidies have likely fallen substantially, as the installed capacity of both solar and wind has expanded markedly. Additionally, costs for solar PV have come down with the alleviation of the silicon bottleneck.

You have a 5 year old, incomplete snapshot, essentially.

Hardly compelling.

The economics do not favor fossil fuels over the long term. This will become apparent to you in the next 10-15 years, kid.

RandomGuy

05-16-2012, 11:26 PM

Almost none,

0.9% of the United States electrical generation comes from oil (EIA (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0802a)) (45% Coal, 24% Natural Gas, 20% Nuclear, 6% Hydroelectric, 2% Wind, 0.03% Solar)

This is why you effectively have two separate energy sectors,

1. Electrical Generation (Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear)
2. Transportation Fuels (Oil)

Nothing is more economically viable as a transportation fuel than oil.

That will change within 10-20 years, and quite possibly sooner. By some calculations, it has already happened.

Battery technology advances will mean that the line between the two sectors blurs and disappears at some point.

Given the current natgas glut that will be doubly true over the short term.

Natgas will be used increasingly for fleet vehicles, and to replace aging coal plants.

RandomGuy

05-16-2012, 11:38 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/solar-energy-costs-may-already-rival-coal-spurring-installation-boom.html

Now about the cost trends atm.

The most powerful driver in our industry is the relentless reduction of cost,” Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of New Energy Finance, said at the company’s annual conference in New York yesterday. “In a decade the cost of solar projects is going to halve again

Electricity from coal costs about 7 cents a kilowatt hour compared with 6 cents for natural gas and 22.3 cents for solar photovoltaic energy in the final quarter of last year, according to New Energy Finance estimates.

Comparisons often overstate the costs of solar because they may take into account the prices paid by consumers and small businesses who install roof-top power systems, instead of the rates utilities charge each other, said Qu of Canadian Solar.

“Solar isn’t expensive,” he said “In many areas of the solar industry you’re competing with retail power, not wholesale power.”

Rooftop solar installations also will become cheaper, the executives said.

“System costs have declined 5 percent to 8 percent (a year), and we will continue to see that,” SolarCity Inc. CEO Lyndon Rive said in an interview. The Foster City, California- based company is a closely held installer and owner of rooftop power systems.

Don't forget the free installation companies.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196872

The free market is picking up here and running with the technologies.

Given China/India/Africa energy demand curve expansion in the next decade or two, we will see some pretty substantial cost reductions in renewables.

Poptech

05-16-2012, 11:38 PM

Energy is, to some extent, money.
No, money is a medium of exchange. The possibility exists that commodities such as oil can be used as money but so far society has preferred fiat currencies and precious metals.

They are interchangible in that when you use energy, you are either purchasing it, or, as the good prof points out, consuming what you have produced as opposed to selling it. Both are economic costs.
Since money is a medium of exchange yes you would use it to purchase energy that does not mean they are the same thing.

I have never heard anyone claim that tar sands offer a negative EROI, as the professor claims "they" say.
You need to hang out with more peak oil conspiracy theorists.

What matters ultimately is cost per unit produced, and how much energy it takes to get that energy to the point at which it is useful.

One thing that got glossed over here, is the fact that the oil produced is the heavy, sulphurous kind. This takes more energy/money to refine than sweet cruide and this is why sour crude oils command less money in the open market.
He makes no argument against this as this is widely understood. The point being that even difficult and expensive to refine oil is still more economically viable than alternative liquid fuels.

Tar sands require massive infrastructure projects in terms of pipelines, and additional specialty refinery capacity. (not all refineries are set up to process it)

Topping this off are the negative externalities of pollution, and water consumption. both of which drag down the profitabilty of tar sands.
Even with all these costs factored in, tar sands are still more economically viable than alternative liquid fuels.

LHD4U2q_p4c

Poptech

05-17-2012, 12:52 AM

Solar and wind would exist without subsidies, but not to the extent they do. Like any technology and energy source, they require infrastructure investments to get the ball rolling. This is what governments do for any industry, oil, coal, and natgas included in the past.
Not outside a university lab and in calculators. If you are so certain then move to abolish all energy subsidies (the bulk of which for oil were abolished under Reagan). Government intervention is not needed in the energy industry and only causes market distortions.

Let's round out our understanding for this bit with some important context you seem to have missed.
I missed nothing. I want all energy industry specific subsidies abolished. Let the best energy source win and it will not be non-economically viable sources such as renewables.

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, those figures for subsidies have likely fallen substantially, as the installed capacity of both solar and wind has expanded markedly. Additionally, costs for solar PV have come down with the alleviation of the silicon bottleneck.

You have a 5 year old, incomplete snapshot, essentially.
This is nice wishful thinking. Here is the 2010 report but I had to do the calculations myself because for some reason even though the letter from Congress at the end of the report explicitly requests it, the Obama run EIA failed to provide these calculations. I wonder why?

Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010 (http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf) (PDF) (EIA)

Natural Gas - $0.64 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.63 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.84 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $3.09 per megawatt hour
Wind - $52.48 per megawatt hour
Solar - $968.00 per megawatt hour

The economics do not favor fossil fuels over the long term. This will become apparent to you in the next 10-15 years, kid.
Child, if the economics really do not favor fossil fuels then the markets will decide what we should use instead all without government intervention.

Poptech

05-17-2012, 01:00 AM

That will change within 10-20 years, and quite possibly sooner. By some calculations, it has already happened.

Battery technology advances will mean that the line between the two sectors blurs and disappears at some point.
Outside of overpriced hybrids and their owners who cannot do math, electric vehicles have too many limitations such as limited range and long recharge times. Improved battery technology requires rare earths which China owns,

Rare earths are vital, and China owns them all (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rare-earths-are-vital-and-china-owns-them-all-2009-09-24) (Market Watch, September 24, 2009)

"China accounts for about 97% of global rare-earth production."

Natgas will be used increasingly for fleet vehicles, and to replace aging coal plants.
Natgas is only replacing coal power plants because of the EPA not because the plants are "old".

FuzzyLumpkins

05-17-2012, 01:11 AM

Narcissistic personality disorder

Last reviewed: November 14, 2010.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors All Fail

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

Signs and tests

Like other personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed based on a psychological evaluation and the history and severity of the symptoms.
Treatment

Psychotherapy (for example, talk therapy) may help the affected person relate to other people in a more positive and compassionate way.
Expectations (prognosis)

The outcome depends on the severity of the disorder.
Complications

Alcohol or other drug dependence

Relationship, work, and family problems

Now keep in mind that Burry is a billionaire yet Popcrazy has no delusion of grandeur. He already admits to having some sort of mental illness.

Second aspergers is a disorder that is noted for its sufferers to have no conception of the feelings of others. They cannot interpret facial expressions or body language and do not observe social conventions.

The thing is that aspergers is involuntary. OTOH, personality disorders behave in the same way but they are aware of what they are doing and just do not give a fuck. As you can see from the survey he is aware but just doesn't care.

TLJEsT9mY2Y

This is a youtube explaining the difference. I recommend listening to it and think about the symptoms and behaviors and compare them to how Poptech behaves.

Either way, Popcrazy exhibits antisocial behavior. If you go to his site he has multiple posts demonstrating his paranoia towards those he considers his political rivals. He also shows a tendency to stalk others in doing so. He has commented in passing how he wants to see people's IP addresses and he trolls people's profiles.

I am not kidding when I say that he is dangerous. this is not like WC's stupidity. this guy will go after you if you reveal who you are. You can look to his site to see the truth of that. I recommend under no circumstances should someone register with his site and give him any inkling as to your identity.

ElNono

05-17-2012, 02:51 AM

Outside of overpriced hybrids and their owners who cannot do math, electric vehicles have too many limitations such as limited range and long recharge times. Improved battery technology requires rare earths which China owns,

Do you have a link for this? Because the one you included doesn't say that at all... Also, when you say "improved battery technology", what technology are you specifically talking about? Carbon nanotubes anode? Lithium phosphate coating?

Oh, and the reason China controls 95% of the rare-earth supply has to do with them being cheaper, not the rest of the world not having the capability to produce the materials... as a matter of fact, now that China has decided to price them at non-competitive prices, mining operations are coming back, including in the US...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/rare-earth-mining-rises-again/

FuzzyLumpkins

05-17-2012, 03:28 AM

china for a long period of time had their prices so low that it was not cost effective to survey for new deposits. now that china has become more protectionist with their supply, mining firms have begun surveying for new deposits. surveying and extraction costs are now cost effective.

George Gervin's Afro

05-17-2012, 07:52 AM

cns news...LOL

Poptech

05-17-2012, 05:20 PM

I see FuzzDubmkins has resorted to spamming the same libelous lies over and over which clearly shows he is the one here with a mental illness,

Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.
It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.

If you go to his site he has multiple posts demonstrating his paranoia towards those he considers his political rivals.
I do not smoke marijuana so I cannot be paranoid. I simply posted the truth about various alarmists.

He also shows a tendency to stalk others in doing so. He has commented in passing how he wants to see people's IP addresses and he trolls people's profiles.
This is a libelous lie, please provide evidence of me ever stalking anyone. I mentioned IP addresses in relation to revealing sock puppet accounts.

I am not kidding when I say that he is dangerous. this is not like WC's stupidity. this guy will go after you if you reveal who you are. You can look to his site to see the truth of that. I recommend under no circumstances should someone register with his site and give him any inkling as to your identity.
This is clear evidence of your psychosis and paranoia. I've "gone after" no one and everything I have revealed about various alarmists can be found for free online.

Poptech

05-17-2012, 05:28 PM

cns news...LOL
GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World (http://news.investors.com/article/611380/201205141900/green-river-equal-to-worlds-oil-reserves-.htm) (Investors Business Daily, May 14, 2012)

Th'Pusher

05-17-2012, 06:14 PM

MannyIsGod

05-17-2012, 06:22 PM

That oil may as well be in the Moon because extracting it from either place is about equally as likely.

Yonivore

05-17-2012, 06:30 PM

That oil may as well be in the Moon because extracting it from either place is about equally as likely.
I say; Release the Krakens of Big Oil and they could get oil from the moon and shale in less time than it's going to take green energy to become economical.

MannyIsGod

05-17-2012, 06:36 PM

I say; Release the Krakens of Big Oil and they could get oil from the moon and shale in less time than it's going to take green energy to become economical.

Someone explain to Yoni how hydrocarbons form and see if you can get him to stop being willfully ignorant on solar power rends. Also explain to him that green energy is not competing with oil as virtually no oil goes to provide energy for homes.

Poptech

05-17-2012, 06:41 PM

Oh, and the reason China controls 95% of the rare-earth supply has to do with them being cheaper, not the rest of the world not having the capability to produce the materials... as a matter of fact, now that China has decided to price them at non-competitive prices, mining operations are coming back, including in the US...
Incorrect, China still holds the largest rare-earth reserves in the world regardless of the price,

http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-REE-Reserves.jpg

I love the irony of those who support mining for REOs because it supports their emotional attachment to electric vehicles but are against mining for hydrocarbons. Is mining for REOs the new green? :lmao

Wild Cobra

05-17-2012, 06:44 PM

MannyIsGod

05-17-2012, 06:48 PM

Yeah, I hear you're going to get a shitload of NG and coal out of that shale.

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY STUPID PEOPLE IN THE WORLD?!?!?!?!?

Yonivore

05-17-2012, 08:15 PM

Yeah, I hear you're going to get a shitload of NG and coal out of that shale.

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY STUPID PEOPLE IN THE WORLD?!?!?!?!?
Because people like you have sex?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-17-2012, 08:28 PM

Because people like you have sex?

Saying that you can get hydrocarbons off the moon was pretty stupid, Yoni.

Yonivore

05-17-2012, 08:33 PM

Someone explain to Yoni how hydrocarbons form and see if you can get him to stop being willfully ignorant on solar power rends. Also explain to him that green energy is not competing with oil as virtually no oil goes to provide energy for homes.
You're the one that equated the two.

That oil may as well be in the Moon because extracting it from either place is about equally as likely.
So, it's more likely oil can be extracted from shale than from the Moon, correct?

MannyIsGod

05-17-2012, 08:37 PM

I didn't say there was any oil on the moon, Yoni. :lmao

As such, I also didn't say that it was more likely for oil on the moon to be extracted than oil from shale. :lmao

Reading is hard!!!!!

FuzzyLumpkins

05-17-2012, 08:39 PM

You're the one that equated the two.

So, it's more likely oil can be extracted from shale than from the Moon, correct?

It was a comparison of cost. Deriving fuels from the shale is costly and resource intensive. You know that. At least you should; if you cannot that creates a completely different issue.

Will you even acknowledge the trends in the cost of solar energy? You avoid the figures like the plague.

MannyIsGod

05-17-2012, 08:40 PM

Its the only way to remain willfully ignorant.

MannyIsGod

05-17-2012, 08:42 PM

:lmao @ Yoni really believing there was oil on the moon, though. All those moon dinosaurs died and formed hyrdocrabons!!! We'll be able to get some good offshore drilling on the moon. The biggest deposits will likely be in the Sea of Tranquility.

Yonivore

05-17-2012, 08:44 PM

I didn't say there was any oil on the moon, Yoni. :lmao
Nor did I. Using the same license as you, I suggested the oil industry could get oil from the Moon before green energy could ever be made economical enough to replace hydrocarbons.

As such, I also didn't say that it was more likely for oil on the moon to be extracted than oil from shale. :lmao
I didn't say you said it was more likely. I posted your quote; you clearly said it was equally likely. And, of course, we both know that's not true.

I have confidence the oil industry can develop a technology to recover shale oil long before green energy is ever an economical alternative.

Reading is hard!!!!!
Apparently, for some.

Yonivore

05-17-2012, 08:50 PM

RandomGuy

05-17-2012, 08:55 PM

No, money is a medium of exchange. The possibility exists that commodities such as oil can be used as money but so far society has preferred fiat currencies and precious metals.

Since money is a medium of exchange yes you would use it to purchase energy that does not mean they are the same thing.

You need to hang out with more peak oil conspiracy theorists.

He makes no argument against this as this is widely understood. The point being that even difficult and expensive to refine oil is still more economically viable than alternative liquid fuels.

Even with all these costs factored in, tar sands are still more economically viable than alternative liquid fuels.

LHD4U2q_p4c

Nothing really to comment on.

I am not a peak oil doom and gloomer. I read oil company financials, and technical papers on the subject.

We are not going to run out of oil and civilization is not going to collapse.

Tar sands may not be more viable than natgas in the short term, but natgas suffersn the same drawbacks as other emerging technologies like EVs, i.e. not enough infrastructure built for it.

boutons_deux

05-17-2012, 08:55 PM

Eagle Ford oil levels expected to soar

The development of the Eagle Ford Shale continues to prompt dazzling assessments and predictions from experts, who said at an energy symposium Wednesday that in four years, the oil-rich formation could become the nation's second-most-productive shale play.

Production in the Eagle Ford could reach 1 million barrels a day by 2016, a year after the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana does, said Trevor Sloan, director of energy research at ITG Investment Research in Calgary, Canada. “So the growth rate out of there would be pretty spectacular.”

But before production can reach that level, some problems have to be solved.

About 1,400 Eagle Ford wells are waiting to be completed or to be tied to pipelines, ITG research shows. There are also shortages of crews and water and too few pipelines.

Once the problems of getting the oil and gas to market are gone, production from the Eagle Ford could double, and “the Eagle Ford would be the second-largest producing area if you could bring all those to market,” Sloan said.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Eagle-Ford-oil-levels-expected-to-soar-3564103.php#ixzz1vBMVZics

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Eagle-Ford-oil-levels-expected-to-soar-3564103.php

MannyIsGod

05-17-2012, 09:08 PM

:lmao @ Manny really believing oil comes from dinosaurs.

Only on the moon, Yoni.

Yonivore

05-17-2012, 09:16 PM

Only on the moon, Yoni.
If you say so.

RandomGuy

05-17-2012, 09:25 PM

I had to do the calculations myself

Natural Gas - $0.64 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.63 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.84 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $3.09 per megawatt hour
Wind - $52.48 per megawatt hour
Solar - $968.00 per megawatt hour

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

You calculated those yourself?

Funny, I didn't see the total number of installed megawatts for those sources of power in the report.

Could you tell me which tables in that pdf you got that information from?
I would also like to see your work on that, so I can tell if your calculations are correct.

I would like to be able to recreate those calculations myself.

RandomGuy

05-17-2012, 09:35 PM

Not outside a university lab and in calculators. If you are so certain then move to abolish all energy subsidies (the bulk of which for oil were abolished under Reagan). Government intervention is not needed in the energy industry and only causes market distortions.

I missed nothing. I want all energy industry specific subsidies abolished. Let the best energy source win and it will not be non-economically viable sources such as renewables.

This is nice wishful thinking. Here is the 2010 report but I had to do the calculations myself because for some reason even though the letter from Congress at the end of the report explicitly requests it, the Obama run EIA failed to provide these calculations. I wonder why?

Child, if the economics really do not favor fossil fuels then the markets will decide what we should use instead all without government intervention.

They will indeed.

I am all for eliminating subsidies over time. I think the time where the subsidies for renewables should start phasing out is very soon.

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.

Your assumption that they are not viable without subsidies is not one that will be permanent, and the long term trends that have been progressing for the last 20-30 years are going to change everything, and that will happen fairly soon.

There are a number of rather disruptive technologies that are going to cause quite a bit of change in the next decade.

It will be interesting to watch.

RandomGuy

05-17-2012, 09:48 PM

Outside of overpriced hybrids and their owners who cannot do math, electric vehicles have too many limitations such as limited range and long recharge times. Improved battery technology requires rare earths which China owns,

Rare earths are vital, and China owns them all (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rare-earths-are-vital-and-china-owns-them-all-2009-09-24) (Market Watch, September 24, 2009)

"China accounts for about 97% of global rare-earth production."

Natgas is only replacing coal power plants because of the EPA not because the plants are "old".

Battery costs per unit of stored energy have come down by a factor of two in the last few years. This trend will continue, as there is a HUGE amount of money at stake for the company that gets the costs down fastest.

Things have happened in the last 3 years in the issue of Chinese rare earth exports. Not sure why you are hanging your hat on financial news that old.

Try this one:
China lifts rare earth export quotas as market demand sours
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/china-lifts-rare-earth-export-quotas-as-market-demand-sours/story-e6frg9df-1226359934072

A study by the Defense Department published in March finds that the stranglehold China has on rare earth production could be coming to an end with new production facilities in North America coming online. The Defense Department report concluded that by 2013 the U.S. military, which is almost completely dependent on China for rare earth elements, will be able to meet a majority of their demand.

The analysis I have read has said that China controls this because it has been so cheap for so long, no one bothered to find alternate sources.

Their restrictions of exports has spurred the rest of the world to find new sources rather frantically, and unsurprisingly, they found what they were looking for.

Long term, such restrictions are unlikely to hold with global pressure on China to ease them anyway.

Range and recharge issues are being solved in a variety of very clever ways. You aren't bringing up things that a lot of solid R & D money isn't already addressing.

RandomGuy

05-17-2012, 09:52 PM

GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World (http://news.investors.com/article/611380/201205141900/green-river-equal-to-worlds-oil-reserves-.htm) (Investors Business Daily, May 14, 2012)

(sigh)

This is the same op ed from the OP, goober.

Further the limitations of this energy have already been addressed.

Do keep up.

This bit was addressed starting with post #14 of this thread.

Have you found the magic water to make this possible yet?

ChumpDumper

05-17-2012, 09:57 PM

lol kraken

lol independence

RandomGuy

05-17-2012, 10:00 PM

I say; Release the Krakens of Big Oil and they could get oil from the moon and shale in less time than it's going to take green energy to become economical.

Big oil has known about this for 50+ years.

I grew up in the rockies, and remember hearing about it for as long as I can remember.

It won't happen.

By the time it becomes economically feasible, other forms of energy will be far cheaper.

You dont' seem to realize the world has changed in the last 10 years, and that pace of change is accelerating.

I think you and a lot of other peole who fashion themselves as conservatives have some bizarre anti-renewable knee-jerk reaction, and this causes a great deal of confirmation bias about what is going on.

You seem to be missing something, no offense.

I try to be as realistic as possible about this.

Renewables aren't going to fully replace oil in my lifetime.

They are going to provide, for the first time, an appreciable amount of global energy.

Our energy mix will shift. No more no less.

This shift will, by all data available, happen fairly soon, and is already taking place.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-17-2012, 11:27 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0517/US-imposes-tariff-on-Chinese-solar-panels-a-victory-for-US-manufacturers

The United States Commerce Department ruled Thursday that Chinese manufacturers are guilty of dumping solar panels in the US market for less than it cost to make them, a violation of World Trade Organization rules that had harmed American manufacturers.

As a result, the Chinese manufacturers – including Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. and Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Col, Ltd., among others – will have to start paying a tariff of more than 31 percent when their products enter the US market.

The ruling adds a major point of friction to already troubled US-China relations, which have been soured recently by a dispute over human rights.

The ruling was a major victory for a coalition led by seven companies with US facilities that brought the trade complaint last fall. That group, the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM), led by German-based Solar World, which has US manufacturing plants, called the Commerce finding a positive first step.

Apparently Germany and the Chinese think the solar market is worth competing for.

Poptech

05-17-2012, 11:56 PM

Could you tell me which tables in that pdf you got that information from?
Pages xviii and xx.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:00 AM

(sigh)

This is the same op ed from the OP
It was in response to the implication that there was a problem with the article because of the source (CNS News).

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:03 AM

They will indeed.
This argument can be settled at any time, abolish all energy subsidies.

I am all for eliminating subsidies over time. I think the time where the subsidies for renewables should start phasing out is very soon.

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.
Nothing economically viable requires government intervention.

Your assumption that they are not viable without subsidies is not one that will be permanent, and the long term trends that have been progressing for the last 20-30 years are going to change everything, and that will happen fairly soon.
This is all wishful thinking. I will believe it when I see it.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 12:12 AM

I am all for eliminating subsidies over time. I think the time where the subsidies for renewables should start phasing out is very soon.

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.

Let the intervention be private. Not public. That's one very big problem with government today. Things are dome with other people's money.

Let those who feel subsidizing a particular technology give money to a charity that supports such financial ventures.

We need to stop the damn tax payer subsidies.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:15 AM

Battery costs per unit of stored energy have come down by a factor of two in the last few years. This trend will continue, as there is a HUGE amount of money at stake for the company that gets the costs down fastest.
Battery technology progresses at a glacial pace, I am not impressed.

The analysis I have read has said that China controls this because it has been so cheap for so long, no one bothered to find alternate sources.

Their restrictions of exports has spurred the rest of the world to find new sources rather frantically, and unsurprisingly, they found what they were looking for.

Long term, such restrictions are unlikely to hold with global pressure on China to ease them anyway.
There are some alternative sources that are known but the problem is environmentalists - who do not like mining at all. Why would they like mining ROEs? Is mining ROEs the new green?

China still controls the largest reserves,

http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-REE-Reserves.jpg

Range and recharge issues are being solved in a variety of very clever ways. You aren't bringing up things that a lot of solid R & D money isn't already addressing.
I have seen no solutions superior to liquid fuels. Yes, I am aware of the silly "rent a battery" station idea.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 12:17 AM

There are some alternative sources that are known but the problem is environmentalists - who do not like mining at all. Why would they like mining ROEs? Is mining ROEs the new green?

The board liberals don't care as long as the mining us done in China.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 12:18 AM

WC should just get it over with and ask Poptech out.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:21 AM

WC should just get it over with and ask Poptech out.
Yes we know these are the fantasies you constantly think about and you desperately want to come out, no one is stopping you.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 12:28 AM

Yes we know these are the fantasies you constantly think about and you desperately want to come out, no one is stopping you.
OMG... glad I still have the pervert on IGNORE. He sure has homosexual thoughts on his mind a lot.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:29 AM

US imposes tariff on Chinese solar panels, a victory for US manufacturers (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0517/US-imposes-tariff-on-Chinese-solar-panels-a-victory-for-US-manufacturers)

Apparently Germany and the Chinese think the solar market is worth competing for.
:lmao The economically illiterate Obama administration strikes again! Finally! Since the poor have been punished by paying higher prices for tires thanks to Obama now wealthy environmentalists can feel the poor's pain and pay higher prices for the their solar panels thanks to Obama. :lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 12:36 AM

OMG... glad I still have the pervert on IGNORE. He sure has homosexual thoughts on his mind a lot.

Who said anything was wrong with being homosexual? The 'I know you are but what am I' routine is cute though.

After Popcrazy admitted to his mental illness, you started talking about your past and growing up and how you had similar issues with being good at math and struggled in other classes. How you too were ridiculed and were probably considered a nerd.

It was pretty obvious that you saw a kindred spirit in him as much as you were preening for him. There are many similarities between the two of you.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 12:38 AM

The board liberals don't care as long as the mining us done in China.

Strawman.

You don't care as long as the oil and gas industry is protected. Its pretty obvious that you both only argue for the conclusion. Reality is secondary.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 12:43 AM

Incorrect, China still holds the largest rare-earth reserves in the world regardless of the price

They only hold 37% of actual proven reserves (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/business/global/30rare.html).

I love the irony of those who support mining for REOs because it supports their emotional attachment to electric vehicles but are against mining for hydrocarbons. Is mining for REOs the new green? :lmao

Talking about electric vehicles, you sidestep the battery question(s) and sourcing... let me know when you can back that claim up... won't be holding my breath... :lmao

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:43 AM

Who said anything was wrong with being homosexual? The 'I know you are but what am I' routine is cute though.
Just come out already. Personally I am a happy heterosexual.

After Popcrazy admitted to his mental illness
I admitted no such thing.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 12:48 AM

Gotta google quicker, Pops... you slippin...

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:48 AM

They only hold 37% of actual proven reserves (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/business/global/30rare.html)
That is an outdated figure, I provided the current 2011 USGS estimates,

http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-REE-Reserves.jpg

Talking about electric vehicles, you sidestep the battery question(s) and sourcing... let me know when you can back that claim up... won't be holding my breath..
Let me know when economically viable battery technology exists that can replace liquid fuels for transportation, especially for aircraft. I want to see those C-130s get off the ground or have room for cargo with all the batteries stuffed in them. :lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 12:49 AM

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

:lol mild.

Its pretty typical for a narcissist to try and paint their mental illness as being some wonderful thing but even if it is just 'mild aspergers' --as if that even exists, its still a mental illness.

Denial is the first step they say though.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:50 AM

Gotta google quicker, Pops... you slippin...
I did not slip but provided the accurate number the first time. Next time check the date of your article.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 12:52 AM

That is an outdated figure, I provided the current 2011 USGS estimates

What part of "proven" equates to "estimates"? :lmao

Let me know when economically viable battery technology exists that can replace liquid fuels for transportation, especially for aircraft. I want to see those C-130s get off the ground or have room for cargo with all the batteries stuffed in them. :lmao

So, nothing on improved battery technology on the Cato website that you can run pretending you know what you're talking about? crofl

ElNono

05-18-2012, 12:53 AM

I did not slip but provided the accurate number the first time. Next time check the date of your article.

You provided the wrong information. Next time actually read, dumbo :lol

Poptech

05-18-2012, 12:55 AM

Its pretty typical for a narcissist to try and paint their mental illness as being some wonderful thing but even if it is just 'mild aspergers' --as if that even exists, its still a mental illness.
Incorrect, it is not classified as such, it is at best a disorder. Just because I have a mental advantage in debates does not mean you have to result to insulting people with disorders.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:00 AM

Diagnostic Criteria for 299.80 Asperger's Disorder

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)

(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."

A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological pattern, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture.

They are synonymous.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:00 AM

You provided the wrong information. Next time actually read
No I did not. What is the NYT's source for their number? The USGS's 2010 ROE reserve estimates for China was 37% which was corrected in 2011 to 50%, your article is dated as October 29, 2010. You cannot be this ignorant?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:03 AM

From a clinical perspective, its interesting to see how he lacks the ability to understand the notions of nuance and degree. Its either all or nothing for him.

It certainly is indicative of retardation.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:03 AM

They are synonymous.
Incorrect. Everyone here knows you are mentally incapable of debating me which is why you have to keep attempting this smear. All they need to do is look back at my complete refutations of your failed arguments. I understand your embarrassment but you will have to live with it.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:06 AM

I want to see those C-130s get off the ground or have room for cargo with all the batteries stuffed in them. :lmao
LOL...

No shit...

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:06 AM

From a clinical perspective,
Yes from a clinical perspective you suffer from psychosis,

Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.
It certainly is indicative of retardation.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:08 AM

No I did not. What is the NYT's source for their number? The USGS's 2010 ROE reserve estimates for China was 37% which was corrected in 2011 to 55%, your article is dated as October 29, 2010. You cannot be this ignorant?

What part of proven vs estimates you don't understand?

Misconception #3:
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?view=article&catid=114%3Acontent0211&id=290%3Acommon-misconceptions-of-rare-earth-elements&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content

lol aspergers
lol stuck on stupid

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:09 AM

Everyone here knows

I don't know that...

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:11 AM

Aspergers is a mental illness. You did state that you thought you had it. You can dissemble all you want but when it comes down to it you know. You can front that i am delusional but you said that you had it, not me.

Without a direct interview its impossible to say with certainty whether or not you are cognizant of your antisocial behavior but you admit something is amiss.

And you still really do not get it. I had you go through your rote arguments so I could get your compulsive behavior on track. When I put the survey in front of you, you filled it out.

Have you noticed that since then I do not really even try and argue with you? How I just talk at you? Theres a reason for that.

You lack self control; that's for certain. I really wasn't kidding when i said you should go see a shrink.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:11 AM

What part of proven vs estimates you don't understand?
I am aware of the difference but is the NYT? What is the source for their number? Surely you can provide it.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:12 AM

I am aware of the difference but is the NYT? What is the source for their number? Surely you can provide it.

I provided it. Anything else you need, dumbo? :lmao

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:14 AM

Where's the "advanced battery technology" source? :lmao

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:17 AM

FuzzDumbkins is a drug addict,

In answer to your question, I have talked to medical doctors and a psychologist about marijuana use.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:19 AM

So not "Everybody here knows"... why do you lie Poptech? Is that part of the "mild form" of your mental illness?

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:20 AM

I provided it. Anything else you need
I see no source assigned to the NYT article.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:21 AM

ElNono.

I'll bet the NY Times article confused the terms. By the NI 43-101 standard, there is estimated, proven, and probable.

I wouldn't put too much faith in any journalist from the NY Slimes. especially when they don't show their sources.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:21 AM

Where's the "advanced battery technology" source?
Are there advanced battery technologies that use rare-earths?

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:22 AM

I see no source assigned to the NYT article.

I backed up my statement. Now back up yours.

Do you lie a lot, or just here?

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:23 AM

Are there advanced battery technologies that use rare-earths?

Back up your statement first, then you'll know the answer to your question.

Come on, start googling...

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:23 AM

I backed up my statement.
Quote from the NYT article their source for their "37%" claim.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:23 AM

I'll bet the NY Times article confused the terms. By the NI 43-101 standard, there is estimated, proven, and probable.

I provided a different source backing up the statement.

Your problem is that you talk before you actually read.

These are things we know.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:24 AM

Back up your statement first, then you'll know the answer to your question.
Are there advanced battery technologies that use rare-earths?

I know the answer I do not have to back up your strawman argument.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:25 AM

I provided a different source backing up the statement.
Quote from the NYT article their source for their "37%" claim.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:25 AM

See what i mean about all or nothing.

Aspergers is an Axis 1 mental disorder according to the DSM.

Its interesting to watch as he tries to categorize it so he can just dismiss it. Also it should be noted how he describes it as a form of persecution when he himself is the one that lay claim to it.

He is correct in one thing: he definitely has an axis 1 or axis 2 disorder.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:26 AM

Quote from the NYT article their source for their "37%" claim.

:lol you got owned
:lol backing up faster than you can go forward
:lol mentally retarded
:lol Cato doesn't cover rare earth minerals
:lol debates
:lol proven liar

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:26 AM

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:27 AM

I backed up my statement. Now back up yours.

Do you lie a lot, or just here?
Your 2011 article still used 2010 numbers.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:27 AM

I know the answer I do not have to back up your strawman argument.

If you know the answer, then what advanced battery technologies are tied up with rare earth elements?

Please be descriptive.

:lol pathological liar got owned

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:28 AM

Your 2011 article still used 2010 numbers.

It uses actual figures. Do you have proven reserve numbers for 2012? Post them.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:29 AM

Do you lie a lot, or just here?

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:30 AM

:lol you got owned
:lol backing up faster than you can go forward
:lol mentally retarded
:lol Cato doesn't cover rare earth minerals
:lol debates
:lol proven liar
Quote from the NYT article their source for their "37%" claim.

Why can you not do this simple task? You keep making this unfounded claims over and over.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:31 AM

If you know the answer, then what advanced battery technologies are tied up with rare earth elements?

Please be descriptive.
Are there advanced battery technologies that use rare-earths?

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:32 AM

It uses actual figures. Do you have proven reserve numbers for 2012? Post them.
With the recent 36% increase of proven reserves in California, China's 2012 number will be dropping.

I don't have the number, but based on the long track record of the NY Slimes inadequacies, I believe PopTech's account that those are the 2010 estimates, over yours.

I do think you are both making too much of this however. Does it really matter who's right on how much China has?

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:32 AM

It uses actual figures. Do you have proven reserve numbers for 2012? Post them.
Where does the NYT article provide a source? Mine was the USGS, I made no claim that they were "proven". Why are you desperately arguing strawman arguments?

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:32 AM

Why can you not do this simple task? You keep making this unfounded claims over and over.

Seems to be the same "simple task" you couldn't do with "advanced battery technologies"...

Why can't you debate with me and back up what you say? Is it because you have a mild mental disease? Or you just like to lie and think people won't call you out for it?

I backed up my claims, including you being a liar.

Everybody here knows some other poster can't debate with you? Why do you lie?

:lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:33 AM

I'm not even arguing with him certainly not over anything political.

We all understand that he thinks he is irrefutable. I imagine that he pictures himself as having only what he considers 'good' aspects of aspergers.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:33 AM

Are there advanced battery technologies that use rare-earths?

If you know the answer, then what advanced battery technologies are tied up with rare earth elements?

Please be descriptive.

:lol pathological liar got owned

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:33 AM

Are there advanced battery technologies that use rare-earths?
I recall reading about an osmium coated anode or cathode experiment, but I don't think it ever when anywhere.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:35 AM

With the recent 36% increase of proven reserves in California, China's 2012 number will be dropping.

What is this China's proven 2012 number? Post it if you have it.

I don't have the number, but based on the long track record of the NY Slimes inadequacies, I believe PopTech's account that those are the 2010 estimates, over yours.

I posted actual proven reserve numbers, including multiple sources.

What you believe in is irrelevant, par the course.

I do think you are both making too much of this however. Does it really matter who's right on how much China has?

Poptech lied. He doesn't appreciate getting called out on it. It happens.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:37 AM

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

That's right...

LOL...

It was osmium in ORMUS form

LOL...

LOL...

ORMUS and Global Warming (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/globalwarming.htm)

Ninth: They could also be used to power electric cars. Here is a quote from an investment promotion by a company called Profit Technologies which suggests that an ORMUS osmium battery has already been tested:

"THE OSMIUM BATTERY of the future will be capable of holding a single charge up to 3,000 miles."

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:38 AM

I posted actual proven reserve numbers, including multiple sources.

If you say so.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:39 AM

:lol Profit Technologies

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:40 AM

thanks for the link... pure comedy :tu

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:41 AM

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:41 AM

I've played with you long enough.

Seems to be the same "simple task" you couldn't do with "advanced battery technologies"...

Why can't you debate with me and back up what you say?
Your mental limitations are stuck on your subjective definition of the word "advanced". I cannot help you overcome these limitations. Since the word can be subjectively defined it can apply to any future battery technology that is simply a newer model than today that uses rare-earths. It does not have to be exotic.

Is it because you have a mild mental disease? Or you just like to lie and think people won't call you out for it?

I backed up my claims, including you being a liar.
You have done nothing but demonstrate your desperation in going after me. It is sad you do not know the subjective definitions of words and how they can be applied in a context outside yours.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:42 AM

He who thinks he ha aspergers posted estimates whereas he posted figures of actual reserves. that's the point.

It is interesting that once he makes a relation between two things it becomes absolute and unassailable.

And it's simply a distraction to the fact that he can't back up his claim about advanced battery technology... simply because he knows nothing about what advanced battery technology is...

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:43 AM

thanks for the link... pure comedy :tu
Oh Shit...

I think I put some cheese out for Mouse and Cosmored though. Now they will say ORMUS isn't available as a conspiracy.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:46 AM

He who thinks he ha aspergers posted estimates whereas he posted figures of actual reserves. that's the point.

It is interesting that once he makes a relation between two things it becomes absolute and unassailable.
I did no such thing. I posted valid 2011 USGS estimates of China's ROE reserves. Sock puppet then went rabid about some NYT article that included IDENTICAL 2010 USGS China ROE reserve estimates but preceded them with the word "proven". I have repeatedly asked for the NYT source, which he cannot provide so I emailed the author of the article. Regardless, this is all a strawman argument as I was not arguing "proven" reserves but sock puppet thinks he "got" me in his delusional limited mind.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:47 AM

And it's simply a distraction to the fact that he can't back up his claim about advanced battery technology... simply because he knows nothing about what advanced battery technology is...
Your mental limitations are stuck on your subjective definition of the word "advanced". I cannot help you overcome these limitations. Since the word can be subjectively defined it can apply to any future battery technology that is simply a newer model than today that uses rare-earths. It does not have to be exotic.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:47 AM

I've played with you long enough.

So that means you accept you lied and you can't backup your claim? Okay :lol

Your mental limitations are stuck on your subjective definition of the word "advanced". I cannot help you overcome these limitations. Since the word can be subjectively defined it can apply to any future battery technology that is simply a newer model than today that uses rare-earths. It does not have to be exotic.

It was your claim...

Improved battery technology requires rare earths which China owns

I asked you to back it up, and specifically mention what you referred to "Improved battery technology". I even listed some of the more promising techs out there in the field (none of which rely on rare earth minerals).

But it's pretty clear you would rather deflect...

BTW, in the industry, the actual name is "Advanced battery technology". You're welcome.

You have done nothing but demonstrate your desperation in going after me.

I asked you to back up your claim. You didn't. You can't. You instead decided to lie. Well, I'll treat you like a liar, then.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:48 AM

Your mental limitations are stuck on your subjective definition of the word "advanced". I cannot help you overcome these limitations. Since the word can be subjectively defined it can apply to any future battery technology that is simply a newer model than today that uses rare-earths. It does not have to be exotic.

:lol back to stuck on stupid
:lol know nothing about battery technology
:lol running away
:lol run lola run

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:49 AM

For shits and giggles:

MONATOMIC ELEMENTS (ORMES) (http://www.crucible.org/monatomic_elements.htm) (Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements)

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:50 AM

For shits and giggles:

MONATOMIC ELEMENTS (ORMES) (http://www.crucible.org/monatomic_elements.htm) (Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements)

White powder? Cocaine is a hell of a drug... :lol

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:50 AM

So that means you accept you lied and you can't backup your claim? Okay :lol
I did not lie about anything. Any new battery made that includes rare-earths can be considered "advanced" in the context I used not your strawman.

I asked you to back up your claim. You didn't. You can't. You instead decided to lie. Well, I'll treat you like a liar, then.
I never lied, you went rabid on your strawman, tearing it to shreds with great delusions.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:51 AM

And it's simply a distraction to the fact that he can't back up his claim about advanced battery technology... simply because he knows nothing about what advanced battery technology is...

That's actually the difference between an axis 1 disorder like aspergers or autism and an axis 2 like borderline, schizoid or narcissistic. He just attributes his obsessive behavior to the 'beneficial' aspects of the disorders but clinically the difference is whether or not he is conscious of it.

I agree with you that he is conscious of what he is doing though.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:53 AM

I did not lie about anything. Any new battery made that includes rare-earths can be considered "advanced" in the context I used not your strawman.

What context did you use? What battery is this? Link?

I never lied, you went rabid on your strawman, tearing it to shreds with great delusions.

You:

Everyone here knows you are mentally incapable of debating me

Everybody here knows? Yes or No.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:53 AM

:lol back to stuck on stupid
:lol know nothing about battery technology
:lol running away
:lol run lola run
You killed the strawman, this has been established.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 01:55 AM

What context did you use? What battery is this? Link?
Context as in a new model battery. Pick a Hybrid car battery that uses rare-earths.

Everybody here knows? Yes or No.
Sock puppets don't count.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:56 AM

I agree with you that he is conscious of what he is doing though.

There's some OCD interspersed there, seemingly... notice how "he played with me long enough" but he can't stop responding...

Either that or a severe case of butthurt can't be ruled out either... :lol

Wild Cobra

05-18-2012, 01:57 AM

Everyone here knows you are mentally incapable of debating me
Everybody here knows? Yes or No.
Yell, I second the motion...

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:58 AM

ElNono

05-18-2012, 01:58 AM

Context as in a new model battery. Pick a Hybrid car battery that uses rare-earths.

So "Improved battery technology" has nothing to do with rare-earths...

Why did you lie then?

Sock puppets don't count.

Everybody here knows? Yes or No.

Why do you lie so much?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 01:59 AM

Yell, I second the motion...

Well aren't you his knight in shining armor?

ElNono

05-18-2012, 02:01 AM

His ability to turn on or off his compulsive behavior is indicative of axis 2.

Right now he is just in defense mode and dismissing everything but it is interesting watching him go when someone feeds his narcissism by conceding a point or the like.

Or his paranoia wrt to "IP addresses" or "sock puppets"... he's never wrong, it's just "somebody out to get him"...

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 02:04 AM

Or his paranoia wrt to "IP addresses" or "sock puppets"... he's never wrong, it's just "somebody out to get him"...

That's the main reason i say he is dangerous. If he has a psychotic break or the like then watch out. He controls what we can observe and he is very conscious of that. It's certainly worrisome.

He just gives out canned answers though there really is no point in having a debate with him. He and WC are very similar in regards to that.

ElNono

05-18-2012, 02:12 AM

Online stupid people don't concern me... Anyways, time for a nap

Poptech

05-18-2012, 02:45 AM

So "Improved battery technology" has nothing to do with rare-earths...
It is the same subjective usage of the word "improved" and my context was the same.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 02:46 AM

Right now he is just in defense mode and dismissing everything but it is interesting watching him go when someone feeds his narcissism by conceding a point or the like.
The only "mode" I am in is... :lmao

Poptech

05-18-2012, 02:55 AM

That's the main reason i say he is dangerous. If he has a psychotic break or the like then watch out. He controls what we can observe and he is very conscious of that. It's certainly worrisome.
You should wear this to protect yourself,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-whEZCOgjrQ8/T5tzQmGe-PI/AAAAAAAAASk/ppfxDHV4tOg/s1600/tin-foil-hat.jpg

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 03:57 AM

People should decide for themselves. Below is an admission of a mental disorder and demonstrations of obsessive and paranoid behavior. Note the responses that he makes to justify such behavior as he will of course be compelled to do.

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence,

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

The following are excerpts from his truth series that he comes up with for all of what he considers his online rivals. He goes after wikipedia too but that is not quoted here.

Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.

DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre.

SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

A new climate alarmist blog appeared on October 18, 2008 from an "unknown" Canadian setting out to both "follow the money" and "follow the science" of the "climate science 'skeptic' movement in Canada". Who in the great Northwest of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada would undertake such a daunting task? Could it be a frustrated academic, a jaded technician or even a rouge scientist perhaps? No, a job of this importance requires someone of much greater skill and cunning...

This one is nice because Poptech posts pictures of the man's home and details of his personal life.

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 04:18 AM

The following are excerpts from his truth series that he comes up with for all of what he considers his online rivals. He goes after wikipedia too but that is not quoted here.
I do not consider them "online rivals", I consider them unreliable sources. Wikipedia is nothing more than truth based on who edits last, it is not a reliable source. You forgot all the links,

The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.

The Truth about DeSmogBlog (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html)

DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre.

The Truth about SourceWatch (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html)

SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

Who is Deep Climate? (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/who-is-deep-climate.html)

A new climate alarmist blog appeared on October 18, 2008 from an "unknown" Canadian setting out to both "follow the money" and "follow the science" of the "climate science 'skeptic' movement in Canada". Who in the great Northwest of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada would undertake such a daunting task? Could it be a frustrated academic, a jaded technician or even a rouge scientist perhaps? No, a job of this importance requires someone of much greater skill and cunning...

The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted.

The real problem is I apparently exploded all your delusions about the sources you relied on as I do not get my science from cartoonists and musicians.

MannyIsGod

05-18-2012, 08:26 AM

Nevermind

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 10:07 AM

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 10:11 AM

I do not consider them "online rivals", I consider them unreliable sources. Wikipedia is nothing more than truth based on who edits last, it is not a reliable source. You forgot all the links,

The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

The Truth about DeSmogBlog (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html)

The Truth about SourceWatch (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html)

Who is Deep Climate? (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/who-is-deep-climate.html)

The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)

The real problem is I apparently exploded all your delusions about the sources you relied on as I do not get my science from cartoonists and musicians.

Can anything those websites say about the science involved be logically dimissed for any of the "Truths" you have posted about them?

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 10:17 AM

Incorrect, China still holds the largest rare-earth reserves in the world regardless of the price,

http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-REE-Reserves.jpg

I love the irony of those who support mining for REOs because it supports their emotional attachment to electric vehicles but are against mining for hydrocarbons. Is mining for REOs the new green? :lmao

Ah, estimates.

If the price is sustained at a high levels, will additional resereves be discovered elsewhere as companies expend money to find them?

This is what happens to oil.

If you answer is no, or you choose to ignore the question, why would the free market work one way for oil, and other for Rare earths?

If the answer is yes, your graph holds little meaning for 5 years down the road.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 10:21 AM

Are there advanced battery technologies that use rare-earths?

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.

ChumpDumper

05-18-2012, 10:54 AM

I don't know why you guys would waste your time with a proven drug addict like Poptech.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 11:20 AM

For anybody who wants to play the financial analysis game you can play along:

Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf) (PDF) (pg xvi) (EIA)

Natural Gas - $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind - $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar - $24.34 per megawatt hour

I had to do the calculations myself

Natural Gas - $0.64 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.63 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.84 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $3.09 per megawatt hour
Wind - $52.48 per megawatt hour
Solar - $968.00 per megawatt hour

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

Pages xviii and xx

These two tables don't really mean much in terms of how much it cost the government per unit of energy ultimately produced.

Gold star to anyone who can say why.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 05:15 PM

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 05:25 PM

If the price is sustained at a high levels, will additional resereves be discovered elsewhere as companies expend money to find them?

This is what happens to oil.

If you answer is no, or you choose to ignore the question, why would the free market work one way for oil, and other for Rare earths?
Unquestionably some new reserves will be found but I cannot say by how much or where. However we are more likely to discover more hydrocarbon energy sources or new ways to extract existing hydrocarbon resources as they are in larger abundances. In direct comparison estimated hydrocarbon reserves are very large when oil shale and tar sands are factored in.

You still did not answer my question. Why is mining ROEs for batteries ok but not hydrocarbon energy sources? Is mining ROEs the new green?

Poptech

05-18-2012, 05:30 PM

Natural Gas - $0.64 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.63 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.84 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $3.09 per megawatt hour
Wind - $52.48 per megawatt hour
Solar - $968.00 per megawatt hour

These two tables don't really mean much in terms of how much it cost the government per unit of energy ultimately produced.
I am not interested in subjective costs irrationally applied. Those tables explicitly show that the government is propping up not economically viable sources of energy.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 05:39 PM

I am not interested in subjective costs irrationally applied. Those tables explicitly show that the government is propping up not economically viable sources of energy.

Wrong answer.

You have missed something rather important. Your calculations are meaningless, because they lack a critical context that any decent financial analysis would incorporate.

This is not computer science.

This is finance and accounting. My specialty, and I analyse information like this on a daily basis.

Your table represents only your own faulty comprehension of the issue. I have a very good reason to say that, and data to support my conclusion.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 05:40 PM

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 05:41 PM

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 05:49 PM

You have missed something rather important. Your calculations are meaningless, because they lack a critical context that any decent financial analysis would incorporate.
Incorrect, they are very meaningful as you made the incorrect assumption,

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, those figures for subsidies have likely fallen substantially, as the installed capacity of both solar and wind has expanded markedly.

2007

Natural Gas - $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind - $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar - $24.34 per megawatt hour

2010

Natural Gas - $0.64 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.63 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.84 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $3.09 per megawatt hour
Wind - $52.48 per megawatt hour
Solar - $968.00 per megawatt hour

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 05:57 PM

Unquestionably some new reserves will be found but I cannot say by how much or where. However we are more likely to discover more hydrocarbon energy sources or new ways to extract existing hydrocarbon resources as they are in larger abundances. In direct comparison estimated hydrocarbon reserves are very large when oil shale and tar sands are factored in.

You still did not answer my question. Why is mining ROEs for batteries ok but not hydrocarbon energy sources? Is mining ROEs the new green?

So new reserves will be found, and have been found. We can agree on that much.

The relative size of hydrocarbon deposits versus rare earth metal deposits is also a meaningless datum without another concept applied. You seem to miss a lot of important concepts. Do you want a hint?

Since you want an answer to your question, I hadn't really given a huge amount of thought to it, but here goes:

I will assume you are talking bout ROEI's? ROE is for money, not energy.

You seem to be confusing the two. As I have stated they are mildly interchangible insofar as energy costs money.

If you are talking about ROEI, I would point out that batteries, and materials to store batteries are not original energy sources. ROEI of such things would simply have to be factored into the ROEI's of the energy sources that require them, and then they are in essence, one time sunk costs, not rolling costs, so their ultimate costs are amortized over all the energy that comes after it. This would make their ultimate contribution to any such calculation very small, and overall a minor consideration.

Again, this should be obvious, but you seem not to have figured this out.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 05:59 PM

Incorrect, they are very meaningful as you made the incorrect assumption,

2007

Natural Gas - $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind - $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar - $24.34 per megawatt hour

2010

Natural Gas - $0.64 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.63 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.84 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $3.09 per megawatt hour
Wind - $52.48 per megawatt hour
Solar - $968.00 per megawatt hour

Nope. I see you still don't get it.

Keep struggling with it, maybe you will figure it out.

(edit)

I will give you a hint, the problem isn't in the math. You can restate the figures as many times as you want, I will readily accede your math is spot on.

They will be just as meaningless each time.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 06:02 PM

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 06:02 PM

Weee, let's see how stubborn we can be.

I'm more stubborn than you are. Ask anyone about the Apollo moon thread.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 06:07 PM

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.

Gold star to anyone who can say why.

Chumpy, Fuzzy, Manny, can either of you figure out why the second calculated table is meaningless when figuring out the ultimate cost to the government of installed energy?

Take a look at the source tables. I promise no PMs, but I bet you can figure out what PoopDeck missed.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 06:20 PM

I will assume you are talking bout ROEI's? ROE is for money, not energy.
No ROE as in "rare-earths oxides" or just rare earths.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 06:21 PM

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 06:26 PM

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 06:27 PM

No ROE as in "rare-earths oxides" or just rare earths.

You are talking to a finance guy. ROE is Return on Equity

ROE can be rules of engagement as well, for those militarily minded.

Rare earth oxides are REO, it seems:
http://www.all-acronyms.com/REO

Meh, no biggie. You might want to use the REO version in the future, to avoid confusion with ROE or ROEI.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 06:29 PM

RandomLies, I cannot read your mind so unless you make your argument I have no idea what you are referring to.

I'm not letting you off the hook, until people who I know are reasonably good critical thinkers have had a chance to look at it and see if they can figure out what you missed.

I promise I will point that out eventually. It would be fairly obvious to an accountant or finance guy, as another hint.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 06:30 PM

You might want to use the REO version in the future, to avoid confusion with ROE or ROEI.
I'll just use "rare-earths".

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 06:31 PM

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.

Wow, you are a stubborn son of a bitch.

Really, try finding the apollo moon landings thread in the club forum. You can butt heads with the jackass trying to prove the moon landings were faked in a studio.

Even I have given up after 2 years.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 06:32 PM

I'll just use "rare-earths".

That'll work.

Now I have a birthday party to go to.

Toodles.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 06:35 PM

I'm not letting you off the hook, until people who I know are reasonably good critical thinkers have had a chance to look at it and see if they can figure out what you missed.

I promise I will point that out eventually. It would be fairly obvious to an accountant or finance guy, as another hint.
Oh no, I failed another mind reading challenge. I should have studied how to mind read harder.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 09:36 PM

Chumpy, Fuzzy, Manny, can either of you figure out why the second calculated table is meaningless when figuring out the ultimate cost to the government of installed energy?

Take a look at the source tables. I promise no PMs, but I bet you can figure out what PoopDeck missed.

I will go with because tomorrow happens. That time does go on.

They are building the infrastructure including construction of the two largest solar farms in the US both of which were not online at the time of those tables. I say we calculate how much it cost to build the Texas power grid and then act like that total is meaningful in terms of long term costs and benefits.

He is mentally ill and he just regurgitates his canned arguments. You can read them on his site. Its funny actually because when he has to deviate from that script he has trouble keeping up. You could tell that when you try to get him to follow the logic forms on his claims of fallacies. How long did we try and get him to do it properly?

I can see why he thinks he has an axis 1 mental disorder. I think he's cognizant though. Axis 2.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 09:43 PM

Oh no, I failed another mind reading challenge. I should have studied how to mind read harder.

Nice try, dingleberry.

It isn't going to work.

There is a rather important hole in your reasoning. You don't have to read my mind to find it.

You just have to look at data that you have made up your mind about already, and find the important concept you missed. That takes critical thinking, not mind reading.

You are capable of critical thinking, aren't you?

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 09:44 PM

I will go with because tomorrow happens. That time does go on.

They are building the infrastructure including construction of the two largest solar farms in the US both of which were not online at the time of those tables. I say we calculate how much it cost to build the Texas power grid and then act like that total is meaningful in terms of long term costs and benefits.

He is mentally ill and he just regurgitates his canned arguments. You can read them on his site. Its funny actually because when he has to deviate from that script he has trouble keeping up. You could tell that when you try to get him to follow the logic forms on his claims of fallacies. How long did we try and get him to do it properly?

I can see why he thinks he has an axis 1 mental disorder. I think he's cognizant though. Axis 2.

I'm going to let the others comment on it before I comment.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 09:45 PM

There is a rather important hole in your reasoning. You don't have to read my mind to find it.

You just have to look at data that you have made up your mind about already, and find the important concept you missed. That takes critical thinking, not mind reading.

You are capable of critical thinking, aren't you?
RandomLies, I do not posses mind reading capabilities.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 09:45 PM

You are capable of critical thinking, aren't you?

i really do not think that he does especially if he has an autism spectrum disorder. If you hold his hand through it enough he can get it by rote but he has no sense of nuance or degree.

You see it from his commentary about how all users of 'illegal drugs' are addicts. How only pot smokers can be paranoid. His puritanical separation of capitalism from anything that he deems noncapitalist. He quite literally has been programmed and once wired he has difficulty steering off that path.

He is mentally ill.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 09:52 PM

...he just regurgitates his canned arguments. You can read them on his site. Its funny actually because when he has to deviate from that script he has trouble keeping up.
Yes I have some common arguments I phrase similarly but only in relation to the "canned" talking points you brought up. I see no need to rephrase something that I already phrased properly the first hundred times. There however is no "script" and I have no problem responding to all your nonsense which is why you continue to resort to your failed demonization attempts and you decided to put me on ignore instead of being further embarrassed by your limited intellect.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 09:56 PM

Whatever makes you feel better at night. It has nothing to do with demonizing and everything to do with comparing your behavior with the typical behavior of the mental illness you admit you think you have and other similar mental illnesses.

Have you ever gone to see a mental health professional about the mental illness that you claim you have?

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 09:57 PM

RandomLies, I do not posses mind reading capabilities.

You don't need them to find the fault in your reasoning.

Your ego won't let you admit you made a mistake, so you won't revisit it.

I find that deliciously amusing.

Find the answer. Show me up. You can do it.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 10:02 PM

...he has no sense of nuance or degree.
Perpetual lies, I have a full understanding of nuance and degree. I also have full understanding of your bullshit and exposed it repeatedly which is why you are now behaving like a pouting child.

You see it from his commentary about how all users of 'illegal drugs' are addicts. How only pot smokers can be paranoid. His puritanical separation of capitalism from anything that he deems noncapitalist. He quite literally has been programmed and once wired he has difficulty steering off that path.
I personally have dealt extensively with addicts and your denial of their addiction is amusing. There is extensive scientific evidence linking marijuana use to paranoia, something I again have extensive personal experience dealing with. The definition of capitalism does not change because you are ignorant of it's definition. What has happened is you are emotionally unable to cope with your cognitive dissonance. You foolishly believe your illegal use of drugs is not addictive and your support of a mixed economy is support for capitalism. Delusional behavior like this is common with illegal drug users and it explains the erratic and delusional behavior of certain posters on these boards.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 10:05 PM

You don't need them to find the fault in your reasoning.

Your ego won't let you admit you made a mistake, so you won't revisit it.

I find that deliciously amusing.

Find the answer. Show me up. You can do it.
I'm trying!
http://www.psd2xhtmlonline.com/wp-content/uploads/mind_reading.jpg

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 10:05 PM

See what I mean?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 10:07 PM

My Aspergers child’s literal thinking makes it difficult for him to understand:

• Nuance and sarcasm
• Sayings/proverbs and sometimes jokes
• Shades of grey
• When rules do not apply

Aspergers children can be bossy and even offensive in reminding everyone of the rules. Their inflexibility is not a mask or pretense, but an inability to understand shades of grey.

http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2010/11/helping-teachers-to-understand-your.html

Poptech

05-18-2012, 10:11 PM

I understand shades of gray very well, I took art classes throughout high school and college. :rollin

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 10:13 PM

Have you ever gone to see a mental health professional about the mental illness that you claim you have?

Poptech

05-18-2012, 10:14 PM

Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.
It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 10:17 PM

I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome

You can try and mime me which is also typical behavior for axis 1 but you said what you sad. Now again:

Have you ever gone to see a mental health professional about the mental illness that you claim you have?

Poptech

05-18-2012, 10:21 PM

Have you ever gone to see a mental health professional about the mental illness that you claim you have?
I never claimed to have a mental illness your drugged out mind keeps believing I did. I have to apologize for humiliating you so bad in those debates that you resorted to this delusional behavior. I have to learn to not be so brutal on those who are mentally challenged like yourself.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 10:28 PM

Have you ever seen a mental health professional concerning the condition that you term as aspergers syndrome?

Poptech

05-18-2012, 10:35 PM

I do not entertain your delusional fantasies.

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 11:29 PM

I'm trying!
http://www.psd2xhtmlonline.com/wp-content/uploads/mind_reading.jpg

So, you can't figure it out?

Dude, I showed it to my wife, and she figured it out after reading through it.

She has a degree in biology and zero interest/knowledge in finance, beyond what I occasionally force on her, heh.

Your calculations are meaningless.

That you can't figure out why is priceless. :lmao

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 11:31 PM

I do not entertain your delusional fantasies.

I beg to differ. You are quite entertaining.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 11:34 PM

So, you can't figure it out?
I am really trying hard, why are you not giving me a chance?

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/02/2-12-09-mind-reading.jpg

RandomGuy

05-18-2012, 11:36 PM

He is mentally ill and he just regurgitates his canned arguments. You can read them on his site. Its funny actually because when he has to deviate from that script he has trouble keeping up. You could tell that when you try to get him to follow the logic forms on his claims of fallacies. How long did we try and get him to do it properly?

I can see why he thinks he has an axis 1 mental disorder. I think he's cognizant though. Axis 2.

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.

Poptech

05-18-2012, 11:41 PM

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 retard's Internet post on a political ideology he never researched and tried to use it as an argument against the ideology, that is irony.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2012, 11:58 PM

Those that claim they have an autism spectrum disorder shouldn't really call people retards. Especially considering that disorder is not known for grasping double entendres.

Poptech

05-19-2012, 12:09 AM

You are a retard.

ChumpDumper

05-19-2012, 12:53 AM

You are a retard.That's what a drug addict would say.

Yonivore

05-19-2012, 10:01 AM

:lmao

Drachen

05-19-2012, 11:05 AM

damn, I just read this last page and now yall are going to make me read this whole thread. WTF is going on? :lol

CuckingFunt

05-19-2012, 11:10 AM

damn, I just read this last page and now yall are going to make me read this whole thread. WTF is going on? :lol

Addict.

Drachen

05-19-2012, 11:48 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-19-2012, 02:18 PM

RandomGuy

05-19-2012, 09:54 PM

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?

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.

RandomGuy

05-19-2012, 09:58 PM

I've played with you long enough.

Your mental limitations are stuck on your subjective definition of the word "advanced". I cannot help you overcome these limitations. Since the word can be subjectively defined it can apply to any future battery technology that is simply a newer model than today that uses rare-earths. It does not have to be exotic.

You have done nothing but demonstrate your desperation in going after me. It is sad you do not know the subjective definitions of words and how they can be applied in a context outside yours.

Meh.

Your mental limitations are in reading shit 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)

RandomGuy

05-19-2012, 10:05 PM

Oh no, I failed another mind reading challenge. I should have studied how to mind read harder.

I see you never did figure it out.

For anybody who wants to play the financial analysis game you can play along:

Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf) (PDF) (pg xvi) (EIA)

Natural Gas - $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind - $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar - $24.34 per megawatt hour

I had to do the calculations myself

Natural Gas - $0.64 per megawatt hour
Coal - $0.63 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric - $0.84 per megawatt hour
Nuclear - $3.09 per megawatt hour
Wind - $52.48 per megawatt hour
Solar - $968.00 per megawatt hour

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

Pages xviii and xx

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.

RandomGuy

05-19-2012, 10:10 PM

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.

Drachen

05-19-2012, 11:23 PM

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.

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 fucking dollars. Still havent looked at the tables.

Poptech

05-20-2012, 12:30 AM

Your mental limitations are in reading shit 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.

LOL arguing with an accountant about cost analysis, and returns on investments.

Stick to tech support.
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 bullshit and so has your argument for levelized costs,

2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html) ([i]EIA)

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Levelized-Cost-2016-600px.png

* 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,

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.

Oh wait, you did not think I researched this too? :lmao

Tech Support? I did that 20 years ago. :lmao

Poptech

05-20-2012, 12:32 AM

I see you never did figure it out.
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. :lmao

RandomGuy

05-21-2012, 12:53 PM

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. :lmao

"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."

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?

RandomGuy

05-21-2012, 12:58 PM

Tech Support? I did that 20 years ago. :lmao

The tech support thing was a cheap shot.
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.

RandomGuy

05-21-2012, 01:09 PM

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 bullshit

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 am all for eliminating subsidies over time. I think the time where the subsidies for renewables should start phasing out is very soon.

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.

I stated my opinion as to what should happen to the subsidies, which coincides ultimately with your own.

Yonivore

05-21-2012, 01:16 PM

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 am all for eliminating subsidies over time. I think the time where the subsidies for renewables should start phasing out is very soon.

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.
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.

ChumpDumper

05-21-2012, 01:19 PM

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.Just as your assumption the water for extracting all the oil out west will be available -- there is no support for it.

RandomGuy

05-21-2012, 01:41 PM

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.

Nothing economically viable requires government intervention.

This is all wishful thinking. I will believe it when I see it.

Manfucturing learning curves, R & D gains, and efficiencies of scale are all in operation for things like PV, especially.

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/pdf/0383er(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 quantities.

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.