What on Earth are you ball parking the preferential rate, the commercial rate and the difference to come to that conclusion?
My back of the envelope math puts the cost of a half dozen projects at a less than ten million apiece. If you can’t find 10 million in funding for a profitable green tech in this day and age, that says there’s something sketchy about the projects.
Edit: Jesus, closer to 5 million. If you can’t find backers for a project that costs a little more than a year of goaltending from Tristan Jarry, that says a LOT about those projects.
Because every time someone says “Hey lets try geothermal” the UCP screams “NO MUST BE NATURAL GAS!!!” Why? Because their donor base doesn’t want to spend a decade waiting for returns to break even on a bunch of new infrastructure, they want returns next quarter. The idea of a long-term investment in anything but AI is a non-starter in the current market so something that takes a decade to break even on is completely out of the question. Do you want me to go line by line explaining this to you, or do you even care? We’re in the middle of internet nowhere and no one here has the power to make any of this happen. We’re at what, 20 replies deep on an obscure forum no of consequence uses? You’re not saving the world by casting doubt on a solution no one can see, so why do you care?
There’s a delightful irony considering you started the exchange with:
but believing something that is demonstrably false isn’t an “opinion”, it’s a delusion. I find it hard to believe we’re suffering from an epidemic of psychosis for no discernible reason, so where is it coming from and how do we mitigate it.
And then, when we dove into your claims about billions of subsidies, we’re down to a handful of millions (in other words, you were arguing for a demonstrably false claim, which according to you is delusional.)
I’m not sure how we mitigate this silliness. Financial literacy? People willing to point out that “hey, those billions aren’t quite what you think they are?”
I mean, wild claims like
The idea of a long-term investment in anything but AI is a non-starter in the current market
are just lunacy.
And now, when confronted with the reality of your position its “why do you even care, we’re on an obscure forum.”
But, why do I care? I’m always curious, you seemed fairly rational at first and I believe we learn best when challenging or examining our ideas, I wondered if you knew something I didn’t. It turns out, you just haven’t really looked into the things you claim. Maybe you’ll examine them a bit more carefully in future? Maybe not. But I believe the only way to mitigate folks believing things that are demonstrably false is rational discourse.
Pardon? I’ve already shown the billions you claim are being spent in non climate externalities are nonsense.
You’re now at the point where you’re claiming the entire market doesn’t plan long term (unless bizzarely, for oil and gas because, I dunno, bad guys.)
So far, the sum total of evidence on your side is “random dude who has no idea how finance and investment work claims none of it works for mysterious reasons.”
What on Earth are you ball parking the preferential rate, the commercial rate and the difference to come to that conclusion?
My back of the envelope math puts the cost of a half dozen projects at a less than ten million apiece. If you can’t find 10 million in funding for a profitable green tech in this day and age, that says there’s something sketchy about the projects.
Edit: Jesus, closer to 5 million. If you can’t find backers for a project that costs a little more than a year of goaltending from Tristan Jarry, that says a LOT about those projects.
Because every time someone says “Hey lets try geothermal” the UCP screams “NO MUST BE NATURAL GAS!!!” Why? Because their donor base doesn’t want to spend a decade waiting for returns to break even on a bunch of new infrastructure, they want returns next quarter. The idea of a long-term investment in anything but AI is a non-starter in the current market so something that takes a decade to break even on is completely out of the question. Do you want me to go line by line explaining this to you, or do you even care? We’re in the middle of internet nowhere and no one here has the power to make any of this happen. We’re at what, 20 replies deep on an obscure forum no of consequence uses? You’re not saving the world by casting doubt on a solution no one can see, so why do you care?
There’s a delightful irony considering you started the exchange with:
And then, when we dove into your claims about billions of subsidies, we’re down to a handful of millions (in other words, you were arguing for a demonstrably false claim, which according to you is delusional.)
I’m not sure how we mitigate this silliness. Financial literacy? People willing to point out that “hey, those billions aren’t quite what you think they are?”
I mean, wild claims like
are just lunacy.
And now, when confronted with the reality of your position its “why do you even care, we’re on an obscure forum.”
But, why do I care? I’m always curious, you seemed fairly rational at first and I believe we learn best when challenging or examining our ideas, I wondered if you knew something I didn’t. It turns out, you just haven’t really looked into the things you claim. Maybe you’ll examine them a bit more carefully in future? Maybe not. But I believe the only way to mitigate folks believing things that are demonstrably false is rational discourse.
Then prove me wrong, because all you’ve done thus far is prove you don’t want to hear answers.
Pardon? I’ve already shown the billions you claim are being spent in non climate externalities are nonsense.
You’re now at the point where you’re claiming the entire market doesn’t plan long term (unless bizzarely, for oil and gas because, I dunno, bad guys.)
So far, the sum total of evidence on your side is “random dude who has no idea how finance and investment work claims none of it works for mysterious reasons.”