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.
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.
This one is nice because Poptech posts pictures of the man's home and details of his personal life.
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
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
The Truth about SourceWatch
Who is Deep Climate?
The Truth about Skeptical Science
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.
Nevermind
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 05-18-2012 at 09:40 AM.
hmmmm.
Before I go through them, are you SURE your calculations are correct and able to be compared directly to the 2007 report? (hint hint)
Can anything those websites say about the science involved be logically dimissed for any of the "Truths" you have posted about them?
Ah, estimates.Incorrect, China still holds the largest rare-earth reserves in the world regardless of the price,
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?
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.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.
I don't know why you guys would waste your time with a proven drug addict like Poptech.
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.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-18-2012 at 06:04 PM.
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.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that not all advanced battery technologies use rare earths.
Weee, let's see how stubborn we can be.
I'm more stubborn than you are. Ask anyone about the Apollo moon thread.
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.
No ROE as in "rare-earths oxides" or just rare earths.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that my context was not your strawman.
RandomLies, I cannot read your mind so unless you make your argument I have no idea what you are referring to.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
