Twitter and The Musk

[cuervo72]

Oh, this is what I read a bit ago, gets to the luck idea.

httpx://brianklaas.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-secret-genius

"(This data correspond pretty well with what my late grandfather’s advice was on how to be successful in life: “avoid catastrophe.”)"

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, this is what I read a bit ago, gets to the luck idea.

httpx://brianklaas.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-secret-genius

"(This data correspond pretty well with what my late grandfather’s advice was on how to be successful in life: “avoid catastrophe.”)"

The first problem is that many still falsely believe we live in a meritocratic society, in which riches are purely a marker of talent rather than of luck or generational wealth.

So accurate.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Let me try and summarize.

This was your best post of the discussion as it relates to facts, by far. Credit where credit is due. I won't belabor it by trying to respond to everything, but a few key points:

- The NERC link doesn't work.
- The IFO study is better than the previous one you linked. It has some of the same problems, and I'll not bother getting into the weeds other than to say I think their assessment of the battery side of things is quite significantly off, and I think that because of the larger body of scientific work that is available on the subject.
- I'm in agreement with you on two points; using EV batteries as part of the grid is a bad idea and shortens lifespan, and the nuclear power that's been mentioned.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I would argue that mankind's standard of living depends on reliable energy and many of the products (like plastics and fertilizers) that we create from fossil fuels.

Life expectancy:

File:Life expectancy by world region, from 1770 to 2018.svg - Wikipedia

Eliminating fossil fuel use is more than just changing cars or how electricity is produced. If we stop making fertilizer, people will starve in many places around the world. With the increase in life expectancy has come a dramatic increase in world population. They need to eat.

This is where it starts to really go off the rails IMO. Nobody in this discussion is remotely close to saying 'eliminate fossil fuels'. It's not 'fossil fuels are evil and no matter what they must stop'. Even the net-zero approach isn't that, it is way more moderate; by definition, all it means is still using one whale of a lot of fossil fuels, just limiting them to the point where we're not adding to the catastrophic climate damage we've already caused (goes without saying they'll last a lot longer in that eventuality as well). Not undoing any of the damage. Just not doing more and stopping the continual acceleration of excessive fossil fuel use, because without doing that we're horribly damaging the future of the increased population, the land many of them live on, their chances of being able to eat - you know, all those benefits that your rightly cite that we've gained.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

When you're spending up to 10% of GDP, as Germany plans, just to pay the electric bills... that's a sign that you're causing a lot of harm with your policies.

You would call these "generalities." I don't. I'm only trying to show that starting this transition early has an enormous cost.

I wouldn't call this a generality per se; I would call it very bad analysis, and that's the nicest way I can put it. A few reasons why (and we could say similar things about the claim that we have plenty of time and so on but I think perhaps it's best to focus on this issue as an example):

- Part of the logic here is like paying for something with your debit card instead of cash, and then thinking you're poorer by doing so because your bank account balance dropped. Using EVs means a larger percentage of the energy is coming from electricity. Of course the electric bill goes up ... but the fuel bill also goes down. The whole picture needs to be taken into account.

- The main problem that Europe has in terms of price increases is of course an over-reliance on energy imports. I agree that this is a policy failure, but as mentioned it's one that applies even more so to our reliance on oil. We can't say on the one side that 'we need fossil fuels, including those we can't produce enough of domestically' and then also say 'boy is Europe dumb for relying on fossil fuel imports'. Europe would be having power problems even if they didn't have a single EV.

- There are better ways; a larger buffer is needed to account for such possible disruptions for example, but until we are in a position where we can't be crippled by OPEC waking up on the wrong side of the bed, we have no room to talk - and nothing you've proposed gets us there. The main difference between us and Europe is that we're more fortunate at the moment. That's it, and that's all.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The largest study on this topic I am aware of is by Ramsey Solutions, with the result that almost 80% of millionaires inherited nothing. I agree with you on the luck bit, but again it's not just luck or skill/ability. You need both. It's important to avoid the single-cause fallacy here IMO. You often have to be lucky, but you also very much have to be other things also.

Ramsey Solutions is a company selling self-help guides on how people can make themselves rich. The study should, perhaps, be taken with a grain of salt.

Here's a different study: http://files.faireconomy.org/sites/d...dBase_2012.pdf

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ramsey Solutions is a company selling self-help guides on how people can make themselves rich. The study should, perhaps, be taken with a grain of salt.

Here's a different study: http://files.faireconomy.org/sites/d...dBase_2012.pdf

Your link is just the Forbes 400 vs Brian's point of millionaires as a whole? It also states 35% started off from "lower or middle-class background" which is pretty darn good success rate for self-made billionaires.

I have also read other studies (Fidelity, Stanley's Millionaire Next Door etc.) that do purport majority of millionaires (not billionaires) are self made. But I would agree majority of them came from stable households that had other inherent advantages/opportunities that many lower income families do not (besides pure money)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This was your best post of the discussion as it relates to facts, by far. Credit where credit is due. I won't belabor it by trying to respond to everything, but a few key points:

Yet still off the rails and terrible and such. Condescension is an interesting approach. I feel we waste more time deciding whether discussion is possible than actually discussing anything.

I would urge you to search for the NERC and learn about its mission and how that was recently changed to avoid too much recrimination when the US grid becomes more strained.

I don't know of any remedy for this. Ultimately, there's a lot of "IMO" in these, and it comes from, when we search for answers, accepting those that confirm the identities we've chosen in the first place.

I try to avoid it myself, but I know I can't as well as I'd like. I hope others can admit the same. I'm encouraged by others (I keep mentioning Bari Weiss, though I know people who enjoy the NYT have a particularly personal dislike for her given her exit) who want to upend the mainstream media/television entertainment paradigm (and of course that includes Fox and their friends) and delve deeply into issues.

As for the economics, I don't disagree with the concept of a debit card, but when the same set of products costs ten times more in their new form... it's not just about subsidized EVs. It's about replacing something that has demonstrably increased quality of life around the world in an unprecedented manner with something far more expensive, far less reliable and far less available to those in poverty.

This is why I point out that Germany has approved up to 10% of its GDP in subsidies just so individuals and businesses don't go bankrupt just keeping the lights and furnaces on. And why I quote the person at Deutsche Bank most responsible for their expectations about the future of energy.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yet still off the rails and terrible and such. Condescension is an interesting approach. I feel we waste more time deciding whether discussion is possible than actually discussing anything.

I don't think it was condescending. I gave you credit for the points you made that I think are valid, and explained why they don't change the broader picture. For it to be a reasonable discussion, is it your contention that I should describe claims as reasonable when I don't think they actually are? When someone makes a statement talking about things like 'eliminating fossil fuels', my reaction to that is it's a self-evident, blatant strawman. So if I'm going to be involved in an honest discussion, I can't just say 'well that's one way of looking at things' because that's just burying the issue - at some point the fact that this isn't remotely the case has to be dealt with.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I would urge you to search for the NERC and learn about its mission and how that was recently changed to avoid too much recrimination when the US grid becomes more strained.

I don't see the relevance of this. The entire US grid could be a complete basketcase and it wouldn't be relevant. We don't have enough EVs on the road to make a significant difference and we need a stable energy supply long-term whether we have EVs or not, and we have enough resources to make that happen in a wide variety of ways if we choose to do so. They are two separate issues that should be solved in tandem, but our energy grid being unstable now isn't an argument against EVs.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

when the same set of products costs ten times more in their new form...

That's the thing though; they don't cost ten times more.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's about replacing something that has demonstrably increased quality of life around the world in an unprecedented manner with something far more expensive, far less reliable and far less available to those in poverty.

That's factually not what is happening.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ramsey Solutions is a company selling self-help guides on how people can make themselves rich. The study should, perhaps, be taken with a grain of salt.

I think any individual study should be taken with a grain of salt, but in terms of the scope of the study it is far different than the one you're talking about. I don't think there's any question the 'most rich' are more likely to have inherited; the point I was getting at is the rich as a whole largely have not.

[flere-imsaho]

Study to back up Edward's point that most rich have some sort of familial advantage unavailable to the poor: The Effects of Head Starts and College on Family Wealth | St. Louis Fed

The contention that these are all "self-made men" is the problem with which I am taking exception. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Jobs, Holmes, etc.... They all had access to advantages available only to the significantly privileged (from a US standpoint) or astronomically privileged (from a global standpoint).

We continue to lionize these people, when the recipe for their success is actually very simple:

1. Have money.*

2. Be a jerk.

3. Get lucky.

4. Be hailed as a genius.

We tend to forget about 1, forgive 2, and misunderstand how much being in the right place at the right time matters to 3.

In addition, the wild monetary success I think overweights our thinking on the effort involved. IMO, plenty of people in professions that lack the possibility of wild financial success work harder and arguably accomplish more, in terms of changing the lives of others. Teachers, doctors, scientists, etc.... By wildly overpraising Musk & Co we diminish those who actually keep society working.

*Or easy access to other people's money on very favorable terms.**

**Likely because you were privileged to begin with.

[Edward64]

It comes down to your & Brian's definition of what "self-made" means.

I believe in the studies of millionaires, "self made" means they did not inherit their money, not that they didn't have some advantages that many others did not have.


Side note on luck (and not on the broader discussion).

I'm of the belief its not all/mostly random chance, you can influence how "lucky" you are. See below study & article on another study.

As Luck Would Have It - Scientific American
https://www.washingtonpost.com/welln...d-real-change/

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

For it to be a reasonable discussion, is it your contention that I should describe claims as reasonable when I don't think they actually are? When someone makes a statement talking about things like 'eliminating fossil fuels', my reaction to that is it's a self-evident, blatant strawman.

But that is what many people want, and your "full stop" implies that you're going in that direction. Fine, we seem to agree on nuclear and we seem to disagree on the unreliables like wind and solar.

Italy, for one, is waking up. Like Germany, they were even backing away from nuclear. They recently changed their minds. The UK and Germany are so far down this rabbit hole that it will take an extensive reliability crisis to wake them up.

That's factually not what is happening.

It is. Not that I expect that statement to change anyone's mind or yours to change mine.

But I'd be interested in why you think fossil fuels aren't a big part of the reason life expectancy around the world has more than doubled in the last 150 years, as well as dramatic increases in our ability to feed the population boom.

I will renew one of my resolutions this year. I resolve to keep learning, even when it's uncomfortable. So I hope I'm wrong in this case, and suddenly the costs aren't so bad and we aren't headed into a period of energy instability.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I will renew one of my resolutions this year. I resolve to keep learning, even when it's uncomfortable.

Hah. Don't forget, there are things that seems to happen faster than light aka Entanglements

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Hah. Don't forget, there are things that seems to happen faster than light aka Entanglements

I read a sci-fi book last week that screwed around with that. More multiverses and contradictory timelines and resolutions that imply that some sort of god is running it anyway. Entertaining, but you can't take it seriously.

At any rate, let me know if anything larger than sub-atomic particles does something that we think can't be done. I think that's what I hate the most about the unreliables - they're not working for us, and the world is spending trillions it could be spending looking for something that could work.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At any rate, let me know if anything larger than sub-atomic particles does something that we think can't be done.

Have to start somewhere. Building blocks ...

Now that we have (supposedly) confirmed it's happening, we now need to figure out how. And once that happens, think of the possibilities ...

... imply that some sort of god is running it anyway

I read somewhere that we'll know for sure if we are in a simulation when/if we see a message like "Error 404" popping up in darkness of space

[Solecismic]

The simulation theory seems more and more egotistical every time I think about it. Pretty much identical to a child who wonders if he lives within a solipsism, only with a smidgen of self-deprecating humor. Because there's nothing less funny than a solipsistic six-year-old.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

that is what many people want, and your "full stop" implies that you're going in that direction.

None of these 'many people' have been cited in this thread, and what I said actually doesn't imply that at all, in any way. I don't disagree with you that humanity has used fossil fuels in ways that have greatly improved society and have made no point that is contrary to that reality, along with already explicitly agreeing with it in a previous post. I am so confused at the reading comprehension here. It's as if my posts don't even exist and you're conversing with someone else who has made claims I haven't gone near.

Here's what I actually said:

Originally Posted by me

You can't just assess the transformation cost in isolation. It's incredibly cheap compared to the alternative. Our current reliance on oil is not sustainable, full stop. That's even if we don't care about the environmental damage. The choice isn't 'EV or status quo'. Status quo isn't an option. Hydrogen at present is a worse alternative. What other serious candidates do we have?

- I said nothing here about fossil fuels on the whole, though that is an important issue vis-a-vis climate change; as I've pointed out, even net-zero advocates accept burning considerable amounts of fossil fuels, that's literally involved in the phrase 'net-zero'.

- The full stop relates to the phrase that literally precedes it; our current reliance on oil is unsustainable. IMO this is simply a 100% demonstrable fact. Regardless of how beneficial oil is, and even leaving aside your own stated principles of energy independence which would mandate not relying on it either, we are going to be forced off of it one way or the other. We can do so on our own terms to a degree, or we can wait until it becomes a crisis and then accept the consequences of that, but oil as something that drives our economy to the degree is currently does is going away no matter what we choose.

- This is so far away from anything even vaguely resembling 'eliminating fossil fuels' that I don't know what to say. It's as if somebody said 'Good morning!' and the reply was 'How dare you threaten me like that!'.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At any rate, let me know if anything larger than sub-atomic particles does something that we think can't be done.

Small molecules even have been observed to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, which include 'communication' across time in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. I view simulation theory as a legitimate option not because I want to (I don't) or for some egotistical reason, but because the evidence of how quantum mechanics and relativity each fit the observed behavior of the universe and conflict with each other and the fact that several decades of study by the top physicists in the world have been unable to resolve this. It one of those 'here are the facts as best as we can determine them. I can ignore these facts, or I can try to find the explanation which best fits them' moments.

Also very OT for this thread, but since when have we cared about that

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I am so confused at the reading comprehension here...

We agree on that part. Plus, you have so many rules for discussion, and you tend to ignore them yourself when convenient (that's "factually not what's happening", "IMO", etc). Rules for me, but not for thee.

So, eventually fossil fuels run out. But when? In the 1970s, people had the same concerns, and panic ensued and the economy tanked and poor people paid the biggest price, we had high inflation and a recession and Jimmy Carter revived the Republican party from the ashes of Nixon's duplicity (Trump may be worse than Nixon in many ways, so that particular history may take longer to repeat).

Known reserves are actually larger now than they were then. So what's the emergency? We know we have to keep looking for new technologies, yet instead, we're using today's failed technologies to replace fossil fuels and the same thing is happening to the economy.

Net zero is a weird theory and requires invention of technologies that don't exist today at scale (just like the battery farms needed to power the grid when the wind isn't blowing).

Maybe we run out in 2070, but maybe we've found enough to get to 2120 by then. Shouldn't bet on it, but there's no current emergency that warrants destroying energy security today.

So I point out a government group that's tasked with measuring and hopefully encouraging grid reliability, and you just ignore the evidence.

You mention climate, but, if you really believe CO2 emissions affect the climate much, then you likely understand that what the western world doesn't burn, the rest of the world will happily burn as they steadily replace any manufacturing we once did. All this does is give Russia and China more power.

I point out that Germany and the UK are in particular trouble, and are amassing debt simply to avoid having people unable to heat their homes and you talk about debit cards of all things. No, that's not how they work - unless they can be used to devalue currency and pay for things far beyond what's in our bank accounts. If EVs become a serious option beyond the commuter toys for the upper middle-class, adding that burden to the electrical grid isn't feasible, and they all know it.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but everyone actually involved in planning knows the only way we can keep the lights on with this plan and the only way we can phase out fossil fuels today is through massive changes in our standard of living.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

you have so many rules for discussion, and you tend to ignore them yourself when convenient (that's "factually not what's happening", "IMO", etc). Rules for me, but not for thee.

Huh? I have bent over backwards to be overly fair in this discussion. I don't know what you're talking about here. The 'factually not what's happening' a few posts up was just shorthand for not repeating yet again what I've already said in longer form, and I've been consistently backing up what I've said with facts.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Known reserves are actually larger now than they were then. So what's the emergency?

A simplistic and misleading comparison. Known reserves available at a cheap price are not larger, we have more expensive ways of acquiring oil now which has increased the reserves number. One could go into more detail here on the different types and sources but that's a longer conversation and we haven't been able to make progress on more straightforward ones. Suffice to say, as I did earlier in the thread, that the factual situation is not at all the one that existed in the 70s, and we are not in remotely as good a position. At that time we were still discovering more oil than we were consuming. It is still the case that this hasn't happened in 40 years. You can't have that and an actual increase in supply; what's powered the reserves number growing (at a slower rate than consumption btw) is reclassification of previously known deposits.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I point out a government group that's tasked with measuring and hopefully encouraging grid reliability, and you just ignore the evidence.

Again this is just a lie. I haven't ignored it, I've pointed out how it isn't relevant, because there are many ways to have grid reliability which are completely independent of whether we use EVs or not.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I point out that Germany and the UK are in particular trouble, and are amassing debt simply to avoid having people unable to heat their homes

Like most of the other stuff you've pointed out, I addressed that head-on as well. You ignored the main point of my explanation vis a vis reliance on imports. You keep talking about 'running out' of oil, even though I specifically addressed the fact that we'll have a big problem long before we actually run out. I mean this whole post really just keeps saying 'what about this' relating to issues that I've addressed specifically and what I said has been ignored so that the same talking points can be repeated.

[flere-imsaho]

This conversation is giving me deja vu.

[Solecismic]

Yep, simplistic, misleading, lies, etc. What we're really doing is talking past each other. I think you genuinely believe you've bent over backwards to be overly fair. You haven't come close. And I'm getting tired of your constant whining about it.

Methods of extraction have improved and they are more expensive. And now, in many areas around the world, any methods are forbidden. Games are played with leases, oil companies pass along those coasts, focus on different markets. The end result is that we pay a lot more for oil and then we pay incredible amounts for failing technologies like wind and solar.

For those of us in wealthy America, the impact is beginning. I'm sure you've noticed your utility rates rising far beyond inflation. You probably haven't noticed the increase in power outages. Our grid became remarkably reliable after it became a mission stemming from the major incidents in 1965 and 1977.

In Europe, multiply the impact many times - to the point where the government simply pays for much of it (so the energy sector is partially being nationalized - if that were production of any kind, we could look at the transformation of Venezuela from the most modern South American economy to hell as an example of why socialism is a bad idea).

If you think the mission of the NERC is irrelevant and their warnings a lie, not sure what to say there. It's kind of the crux of this argument - price and unreliability = if there is a crisis coming down the road, we're greatly hurting our ability to meet it.

If there's some magic in globalization, tell me how this all doesn't end up with China's dictator using the White House as his summer cottage in a few decades. They don't play by our rules. They have something we want and are willing to produce it (with slave labor). What do we have that they want?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The end result is that we pay a lot more for oil and then we pay incredible amounts for failing technologies like wind and solar.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

. I think you genuinely believe you've bent over backwards to be overly fair. You haven't come close. And I'm getting tired of your constant whining about it.

When you claim I've said something I demonstrably haven't, I have to point that out or we aren't having a discussion, I'm just being a doormat. From my perspective, from early on in the conversation you tilted the 'rules of engagement' so far in your favor that the thing literally fell over, and I let most of that be. I don't call that whining. I have no idea how to even respond productively.

You've asked a couple of times in recent posts about China. I don't want to just pretend that hasn't been said or isn't worth considering, but I can't respond to that other than by repeating things I've already said multiple times, and which comments you didn't consider worthy of responding to. I see no use in that.

Here's a practical example from your most-recent post of what I mean:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Methods of extraction have improved and they are more expensive. And now, in many areas around the world, any methods are forbidden. Games are played with leases, oil companies pass along those coasts, focus on different markets. The end result is that we pay a lot more for oil and then we pay incredible amounts for failing technologies like wind and solar.

I think some of this is arguable and much of it is flat-out not true. Leaving aside the graphic flere-imsaho posted, I seriously have no idea how to productively respond to the rest of it. Options as I see them:

- Agree with it 100%. That would be a lie and there's no point in having a discussion if I'm going to be a doormat.

- Just say I don't agree. We're into Big Lebowski territory there, aka 'that's just like your opinion, man'. We can go around the merry-go-round of 'you're wrong' 'no you are' as many times as we wish, but we will get nowhere but tracing the same circle.

- There's almost nothing here that's specific enough to be refuted, or confirmed, supported or knocked down. What games are being played, by whom, to what degree, with what affects? Same for almost every phrase in this paragraph, with the exception of part of the last sentence. If I provide contrary examples, you can just say you were talking about something else.

- I can ignore it, which can be seen as disrespectful although you can't reply to everything in a conversation like this. And I've even been accused here of ignoring things I did not, in fact, ignore so ...

- The great majority of scientific inquiry is placed outside what you will consider, by your own statements.

I'm not asking you to argue against your own statement, I'm just saying 'what is a reasonable way of disputing this kind of statement'. What types of things could I even say that would in your opinion be productive to the conversation, short of being in agreement with everything stated? If it's a fault of mine as a poster so be it, but I don't see any way to do that. It's what I refer to as the Circle of Insulation, and it's something that seems to be particularly prevalent on this board, not specific to you by any means. When all reasonable potential paths of criticism are cut off as being invalid, there's no way in.

[albionmoonlight]

Elon Musk has destroyed more than half of Twitter’s value in a little over 2 months, investor filing suggests

Maybe putting stupid people in charge of important things is a bad idea.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm not asking you to argue against your own statement, I'm just saying 'what is a reasonable way of disputing this kind of statement'. What types of things could I even say that would in your opinion be productive to the conversation, short of being in agreement with everything stated? If it's a fault of mine as a poster so be it, but I don't see any way to do that. It's what I refer to as the Circle of Insulation, and it's something that seems to be particularly prevalent on this board, not specific to you by any means. When all reasonable potential paths of criticism are cut off as being invalid, there's no way in.

I can certainly empathize with this statement. When two people fundamentally disagree on a topic, even after extensive side-reading, even when trying to respectfully present arguments, it often isn't productive.

I say this as well knowing that of the people who talk about non-sports topics here on a regular basis, my old-school liberal self with a strong dash of fiscal conservatism is simply an anachronism.

I'm going to present three web sites here.

One is definitely zero-carbon leaning - it editorializes in every section. But I think it tries to present an honest picture of world energy production and consumption, not only big-picture but with considerable detail.

Our World in Data

In particular, I find this section illuminating.

Energy mix - Our World in Data

And one of the things I get from this is that we're close to 3% of world energy produced by solar/wind/battery power.

Another is that while this is obviously increasing, the amount of energy production related to fossil fuels is also increasing. Much of that coming from China - and it's likely because they are happy to produce for us what we will no longer produce for ourselves.

You can explore the site to see, in particular, coal use in China - let's get those factories going.

The second web site is one that many here will discount because its mission is more in line with a political approach I'd endorse. I am sure someone could look at its funding and find a source or a connection to someone or some thought worthy of cancellation. I'm not a big fan of the cancel culture, but that's how things work these days. Don't argue the ideas, argue the culture. And I try to ignore that, but it's everywhere these days.

Free-Market Think Tank in NYC | Public Policy, Economics, Education

In particular here, a piece that argues against our massive funding of SWB.

The “Energy Transition� Delusion | Manhattan Institute

You can see where it's going by the loaded headline. I'd urge you to read it anyway.

One thing that stood out, and it's partially sourced by a piece on Bloomberg that counted global SWB subsidies at $750 billion or so in 2021, is that to get to 3%, governments have spent about $5 trillion subsidizing the SWB marketplace over the last 20 years.

So, if you try and connect the cost of electricity alone, about 10 cents per kilowatt hour in the U.S. right now - with the subsidies, and consider that if you look at the first site, you can count essentially how much SWB has produced over the years, you could come up with about 55 cents per kilowatt hour, world-side in subsidies alone.

And this doesn't even begin to address energy stability or reliability.

So, the third site you say doesn't work. I'll try a direct link to the report:

https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reli..._LTRA_2022.pdf

This addresses short and long-term reliability isssues with the electric grid in the U.S. and Canada. The NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) was designated the official source within the U.S. for assessing government reliability standards about 20 years ago. So that's under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

All taken together, I think it paints a picture of serious trouble ahead if we do not move away from SWB and toward other sources (Nuclear definitely a key moving forward).

[Ksyrup]

Michael Flynn's account reinstated on J6. Both sides!

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Michael Flynn's account reinstated on J6. Both sides!

Hey! No Twitter content allowed in this thread!

[Ksyrup]

Also a prominent Pizzagate conspiracy theorist is back after 4 years. It was a banner day for assholes on Twitter!

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I can certainly empathize with this statement. When two people fundamentally disagree on a topic, even after extensive side-reading, even when trying to respectfully present arguments, it often isn't productive.

I appreciate the charity of this statement, but I also need to note that you didn't actually answer the question. It's not just a case of fundamental disagreement; I've had highly productive discussions with people I disagree with, and others that aren't so much.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

one of the things I get from this is that we're close to 3% of world energy produced by solar/wind/battery power.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

One thing that stood out, and it's partially sourced by a piece on Bloomberg that counted global SWB subsidies at $750 billion or so in 2021, is that to get to 3%, governments have spent about $5 trillion subsidizing the SWB marketplace over the last 20 years.

These are a couple of the most important statements here, for a couple of reasons.

- You refer to this level of investment as massive. I would call it transparently not even really trying, perhaps tokenism is the best word. 5 trillion is well under a tenth of a percent of the global GDP over that period. If you invested at minimum 50-100 trillion, I might begin to think you were actually considering getting serious.

- On the energy reliability front, 3% is simply not nearly enough to matter, which is why the NERC stuff (that PDF link does work btw) is irrelevant as it relates to EVs. It's not irrelevant, as I've said, as it relates to a stable energy future, reliable grid is important, but they are two different if tangentially related issues. Both are needed to be handled, not one in isolation. It cannot simultaneously be the case that we are not transitioning much, and are also transitioning so fast as to cause widespread energy stability issues. One of those can be reasonably argued for, but not both at the same time. I would say the 3% figure demonstrates that the first is the case. If our grid can't handle a 3% transition, that means it's inadequate if no transition were being attempted.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The “Energy Transition� Delusion | Manhattan Institute

You can see where it's going by the loaded headline. I'd urge you to read it anyway.

I don't have a problem with the headline. I do have a problem with the bad arguments and bad use of data contained within it - I don't think dishonest is too strong of a term here. I can unpack that more if you don't think it would be a complete waste of time, but I will say that probably the central point of what they are arguing is not in dispute; energy transition is very difficult and will be very expensive & disruptive to the global economy. The problem is they explictly only deal with that side of the equation, present some of the data/arguments in a selective/slanted way, and don't deal with the reality that it's still a fantastic bargain at 10x the price, making the usual flawed assumption that we have the option of continuing on our current path indefinitely without paying a catastrophic price for it.

[flere-imsaho]

$750B is nothing. It's less (usually) than our defense budget.

It's nowhere near the ~$6T (trillion) in subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives annually, globally.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I appreciate the charity of this statement, but I also need to note that you didn't actually answer the question. It's not just a case of fundamental disagreement; I've had highly productive discussions with people I disagree with, and others that aren't so much.

Unproductive is a word I'd use here, yes. It's hard to read tone on the internet, but every time you go down this road, I read heavy condescension on your part. I try to ignore it, because it's not productive to respond in kind.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

- You refer to this level of investment as massive. I would call it transparently not even really trying, perhaps tokenism is the best word. 5 trillion is well under a tenth of a percent of the global GDP over that period. If you invested at minimum 50-100 trillion, I might begin to think you were actually considering getting serious.

Serious about what? You're advocating replacing the global energy system. This is what has powered improvements in quality and length of life around the world.

We are already, 3% of the way there, experiencing serious reliability issues. That's because wind power doesn't work when the wind isn't blowing and solar power doesn't work when the sun isn't overhead.

Every single kilowatt hour from those sources must be backed up 100%, as a result. So every single kilowatt hour you depend upon during this transition either has a replacement, or it doesn't. Connector lines are very expensive and aren't completely efficient, and only mitigate the problem by a small amount anyway.

So they talk about battery farms. But the technology to do this on a large enough scale to cover need has yet to be invented. The battery farms in production now are well under 1% of what's needed.

In 2021, the subsidy alone amounted to about 1% of global GDP. Ballpark, within your range of serious, you're talking about maybe 10%. So we could go back and forth about what that would do to world economies. Arguments about socialism and inflation and printing money. Who would be hurt most, etc.

But the bottom line is that you'd be replacing a working technology with a failed technology. So you'd be destroying a significant percentage of the world's economy, reducing the quality of life for billions of people, to do something that would further reduce their quality of life.

As a result, if there is an impending deadline of no more fossil fuels (we agree it's somewhere, we don't agree on when), we are sacrificing our ability to meet that crisis.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't have a problem with the headline. I do have a problem with the bad arguments and bad use of data contained within it - I don't think dishonest is too strong of a term here. I can unpack that more if you don't think it would be a complete waste of time, but I will say that probably the central point of what they are arguing is not in dispute; energy transition is very difficult and will be very expensive & disruptive to the global economy. The problem is they explictly only deal with that side of the equation, present some of the data/arguments in a selective/slanted way, and don't deal with the reality that it's still a fantastic bargain at 10x the price, making the usual flawed assumption that we have the option of continuing on our current path indefinitely without paying a catastrophic price for it.

You think it's dishonest and you can unpack that. Fine. I think it's honest and have provided some sources and those sources contain lots and lots of footnotes. So unpack away - get at those footnotes if you like.

You keep saying you've proven all this is dishonest, over and over again. But it's more that you've written, over and over again, that these sources are dishonest and slanted, as if the conclusion is enough on its own. There's a lot of disagreement out there and that's how the opponent is painted. Maybe you'll find that an energy company was the source of one piece of one argument - I'm sure some of it was, and it wouldn't be surprising, since they'd be fools not to invest time and money learning about the entire energy market.

In the end, I'm sure, we agree to disagree. You think there's an immediate crisis and I don't. You think wind and solar are the answer and I don't.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You think wind and solar are the answer and I don't.

Is it okay if they can be considered part of the solution? I have solar panels on our house, and they reduce my bill to just a service charge of $25 in the summer when my neigbhors were complaining on Facebook about having $700 electric bills. Obviously, in the winter, they don't help as much.

I think it's good to come at the problem from multiple angles. Solar/nuclear/geothermal/wind/cold fusion if it ever comes to pass/etc. It takes a village.

[flere-imsaho]

A strong and ongoing investment in a diverse set of renewable energy sources ends up delivering a lot more reliability than fossil fuels that experience cost and/or availability shocks every time an OPEC member does something geopolitical or a refinery has issues.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Is it okay if they can be considered part of the solution? I have solar panels on our house, and they reduce my bill to just a service charge of $25 in the summer when my neigbhors were complaining on Facebook about having $700 electric bills. Obviously, in the winter, they don't help as much.

I think it's good to come at the problem from multiple angles. Solar/nuclear/geothermal/wind/cold fusion if it ever comes to pass/etc. It takes a village.

You don't need my permission. Nor do you rely on solar energy when it isn't producing enough to power your home.

I don't agree with the subsidies often included with panel installation, and it's such a rabbit hole to talk about the slave labor involved in their production (or the village the slaves in question used to inhabit). But this is a decision you've made for your household - not a decision a government has made for its population.

As for the $700 your neighbors pay... either you live next door to mansions (and if they're complaining about $700, they're probably in over their heads for reasons having nothing to do with electricity) or they're starting to feel the pinch of this massive and ill-considered transition. It will get far worse, and quite soon. Energy security and energy poverty are likely to be the biggest stories of the second half of the '20s.

[thesloppy]

This conversation is thee absolute worst.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, I guess we all should just give up and wait for the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuels or a magical pure & perfect energy source, then.

Edit: this was in response to Jim, not thesloppy.

[Kodos]

I don't agree with the subsidies often included with panel installation, and it's such a rabbit hole to talk about the slave labor involved in their production (or the village the slaves in question used to inhabit). But this is a decision you've made for your household - not a decision a government has made for its population.

Is life really much better for people who work in coal mines, or who have their livelihoods disrupted by oil spills/pipeline leaks? Or for the people whose lives are turned upside down (or ended) when superstorms hit their area due to climate change?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This conversation is thee absolute worst.

Especially since it probably belongs in the climate change thread.

[cuervo72]

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Is life really much better for people who work in coal mines, or who have their livelihoods disrupted by oil spills/pipeline leaks? Or for the people whose lives are turned upside down when superstorms hit their area due to climate change?

1. Yes, because 1a. it's a safer than it used to be and 1b. it's still a choice and families aren't being divided.

2. No. But you should also consider the effects of massive amounts of green space converted for wind and solar. The noise issue from nearby wind turbines is significant.

3. Immediate climate attribution is a bizarre new twist, and mostly comes from the media. The number of people killed in weather events has steadily been decreasing for decades. The overall severity of hurricane and tornado seasons has been steady or dropping. This entire line of argument isn't an effective one.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

every time you go down this road, I read heavy condescension on your part. I try to ignore it, because it's not productive to respond in kind.

It's not condescension though. A fundamental question to any discussion is what kind of reply you accept as valid. Are there any, or will the same dismissal result no matter what? I, multiple times in this discussion, have given examples of what I would consider valid rebuttals to what I've said. It's hardly condescension to insist on reasonable terms of debate.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ballpark, within your range of serious, you're talking about maybe 10%.

No I'm not. Over the 20-year period you cited, the 50-100 trillion amount is less than 1% to about 1.5%.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You think wind and solar are the answer and I don't.

Nope, not true. I've never claimed this. I've repeatedly said otherwhise actually in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

keep saying you've proven all this is dishonest, over and over again. But it's more that you've written, over and over again, that these sources are dishonest and slanted, as if the conclusion is enough on its own.

Also not true. This is the only source I've described as dishonest. I've mostly agreed with the others you posted and pointed out why I disagreed with the other points, based on the quality and use of data in them. Meanwhile you've dismissed the dominant scientific consensus as a weird theory not worth taking seriously. Suffice to say I'm on exceptionally solid ground here.

A few specific items from the Manhattan Institute link:

Originally Posted by Manhattan Institute

the realities of the physics, engineering, and economics of energy systems are not dependent on any facts or beliefs about climate change.

This is 100% true. The reverse is also true; the facts and science regarding climate change are not dependent on the costs and difficulties involved in reducing reliance on fossil fuels. It's a handwavium approach that allows the analysis to proceed without considering the other side of the equation: the cost of continuing to use fossil fuels at an accelerating rate. They don't even mention the shortages issue or address in any way whether continuing the increasing rate of consumption is sustainable. By itself, this demonstrates the whole argument of the article to be intellectually unserious.

A second element is the section devoted to shale. The price difference between shale oil - other sources such as tar sands are also in this boat - and more conventional sources of oil is not addressed. There is discussion of price fluctuations, improving productivity with technology, and so on, but the long-term impact of relying more on sources such as shale is that the price of oil stays high, because unless it is fairly high, shale isn't viable. It is several times more expensive to extract than the oil that OPEC produces, about 5-6x by the best estimates I've seen. Oil at that price can only lower prices if there's a shortage of supply elsewhere, and the more the global supply comes to rely on such sources, the more consistently the price will be high. Shale oil can't survive in a cheap oil environment. That doesn't mean it isn't good - purely from a supply & price standpoint - to have it as a source, but the idea that it's a solution to rising prices is just wrongheaded.

Then we have the Top 10 Energy Truths:

- #8 is particularly egregious starting at 40% instead of 0% which is blatant data distortion, and also presenting an absurdly short 6-year time period.
- #7 assumes there will be no increase in global production of aluminum to meet demand, contradicting what is said earlier in the piece (rightly) about oil, and the fact that there are massive available aluminum deposits.
- #9 makes a similar error, focusing on China's market share instead of available deposits, assuming no changes will happen in resource development. Of course, when you look at available deposits, the scenario is flipped; what OPEC has is a far greater share of oil than what China has relating to mineral deposits used in green energy. All of this of course runs into the other point I've made repeatedly about how our current economy relies on a wide variety of resources from China and other countries anyway - that's just an unavoidable reality regardless of what we do.
- #4, no one, literally no one, claims green energy is carbon free. It's the kind of statement that shows you aren't really being serious about the issues involved.
- #5 Energy density is completely besides the point; batteries don't need to come close to the energy density of oil, because of how much more efficient they are compared to internal combustion engines. This is a near-complete red herring. Better battery energy density would obviously be a good thing, but it's not essential.

And so on.

Again, there are many valid points made in the article. But a valid point robbed of appropriate context doesn't get very far. When you look at the whole picture, it's clear the goal in this kind of piece isn't to take in all of factors involved and come out with a logical conclusion. It's what an exercise in bolstering a pre-determined conclusion looks like.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This conversation is thee absolute worst.

Since this seems to be a common view, I will cease my part in it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not condescension though. A fundamental question to any discussion is what kind of reply you accept as valid. Are there any, or will the same dismissal result no matter what? I, multiple times in this discussion, have given examples of what I would consider valid rebuttals to what I've said. It's hardly condescension to insist on reasonable terms of debate.

...

Again, there are many valid points made in the article. But a valid point robbed of appropriate context doesn't get very far. When you look at the whole picture, it's clear the goal in this kind of piece isn't to take in all of factors involved and come out with a logical conclusion. It's what an exercise in bolstering a pre-determined conclusion looks like.

By engaging in the discussion I left it open to you how to respond and obviously expect the same. You often say a response isn't "serious", but it's usually an attempt to figure out what piece of this massive debate we're talking about. The alternative is a one-line quip intended to signal that one doesn't agree with something. I hope I never start doing that in any context.

Obviously, we're not talking about Twitter and Musk directly here. The Twitter Files show how Twitter and presumably other tech companies have worked with the government and establishment media to mute inconvenient debate.

The other half of that discussion involves Musk's own petty fights with establishment media - that half has received all the attention here, probably because Musk looks rather ridiculous. And that part isn't really going to get much debate. Where does the first half lead us? Some interesting areas - offshoots of Musk's massive wealth from government subsidies of Tesla. The actual Twitter censorship issue from pre-Musk. Is it worth doing this over Twitter in the first place because Twitter represents the absolute quippiest and most useless speech (though apparently many people get their news from Twitter, so maybe it is worth doing).

Point being, neither one of us can "win" this argument. The politically-inclined participants who have remained on FOFC can vote, and I'll obviously lose. I knew that going in. We can back-and-forth over pieces of various documents, and it will come down to dismissing one source over another source. And for reasons having more to do with whether we think climate change is a crisis and how much of it is natural and how much is caused by fossil fuel burning.

At any rate, I will conclude with this as well. I don't want to upset people.

[Edward64]

Nah, don't conclude. You guys are having a good conversation and, for the most part, a cordial one. I agree with both of you on some matters and disagree with both on others. And I am learning some new stuff. Just take it to the climate change thread.

There are some that would say anyone should be able to post whatever they want in whatever thread they want, and self govern. But I agree with recent posters requesting it moves to a more appropriate thread as this seems much more in depth and very different tangent than just Musk.

[Fidatelo]

I agree with the others, this conversation is the worst and has destroyed this thread. Remember when it was about Twitter or Elon Musk like the title says? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[Bobble]

I like seeing the discussion. It was informative. It's a topic I want to know more about. I wish it would found a better middle ground BUT it really shouldn't be in this thread.

[Lathum]

I bailed on this thread when it because unreadable 3 pages ago.

[NobodyHere]

So back to the topic at hand?

Elon Musk hints at big changes to Twitter's character limit | Fortune

Good? Bad?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So back to the topic at hand?

Elon Musk hints at big changes to Twitter's character limit | Fortune

Good? Bad?

Completely unnecessary and won't improve the product. Since you create thread discussions, you can already do as many words as want in a discussion. A single tweet that is a wall of words is not going to improve anything.

[Brian Swartz]

After some of the conversations I've observed on this forum over the last couple of years, esp. in the Trump thread, all I can do is laugh uproariously at the assessment of this one.

Agree with GrantDawg on the character limit. Pointless.