RDS.A Forum Topics
- All Comments on RDS.A
- General Discussion on RDS.A
- The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
- Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
- Want to Profit from Sky-High Oil? Avoid the Majors [view article]
- Some Energy Stocks Burn Brighter Than Others [view article]
- Barron's Banks on $100 Oil [view article]
- What's Wrong with Today's Value Investing? [view article]
- Japan’s Shell Affiliate To Build Y100 Billion Solar Panel Plant [view article]
- Exxon Joins Competitors in Moving Away from Gas Station Ownership [view article]
- Why Investors Should Be Interested in Shale Oil [view article]
- UK Pension Fund Is Going Green [view article]
- BPZ Resources Takes a Giant Step into the Big Leagues [view article]
- Options Trader Thursday Outlook [view article]
loading ...Recent RDS.A Articles
- Want to Profit from Sky-High Oil? Avoid the Majors
- Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?
- Japan’s Shell Affiliate To Build Y100 Billion Solar Panel Plant
- What's Wrong with Today's Value Investing?
- UK Pension Fund Is Going Green
- Some Energy Stocks Burn Brighter Than Others
- BPZ Resources Takes a Giant Step into the Big Leagues
- Barron's Banks on $100 Oil
- The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful
- Inflation-Adjusted Gas Prices at Record Levels as China Raises Energy Prices
- Full List of Articles »
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
Peak oil is about oil production, not about estimated oil in stone.Current production is around 85 million bbls per day. Low end of estimated yearly production decrease per field: 5%. This means that about 4 million bbls per day of new production is needed each year. That means 40 increases of 100,000 bbls per day each.
Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
alpha24seven:Thank you for the links. It is great to know that BP and Shell are doing their part now. They really do not need to worry about the new tax since they should be able to get enough credits to offset that. The purpose has already been achieved.
Prop 87:
The first rebuttal from the oil industry insider makes some claims without much analysis behind them. Further they might have been relevant when oil was trading in the $30s-$40s. When oil trades well above $100, any increase in the marginal cost of production of oil because of a few dollars of taxes per barrel is irrelevant. Oil is currently priced based on value plus model, not the cost plus model. It will definitely affect the profitability of the producer but when the gap between the cost of pumping and market price is almost three figures, the tax does not matter when it comes to the decision to pump or not. The corporate tax issue affects any firm doing business in CA; nothing unique to oil.
Oil Drum: The debate between RR (Rapier) and Khosla was not much about Prop 87 but between Khosla's focus on ethanol and RR's opposition to ethanol as an alternative. RR has done an excellent roundup article which clarified both the sides here
www.theoildrum.com/sto...
Khosla believes in ethanol since it is the least disruptive way of reducing gasoline usage without turning our world upside down.
RR has another recent article (2008) where he has started to agree with one of Khosla's sponsored venture:
www.theoildrum.com/nod...
BTW, since you know so much about the solar industry who not right a position paper describing what is wrong with the solar subsidies out there. Just because the subsidies (capital) are not being deployed in the most efficient manner does not mean that the objective is not worthwhile.
fixedincomequant gmail
Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
Your assumptions regarding my dislike of VCs is interesting considering I used to be one. I did my first RE deal in 2002 as a JV with BP Solar.BP And Oil Links:
business.timesonline.c...
money.cnn.com/2008/03/...
www.shell.com/home/con...
www.shell.com/home/con...
Khosla 87:
venturebeat.com/2006/1.../
venturebeat.com/2006/0.../
If you want to contact me offline we can discuss further.
alpha24seven (at) gmail.com Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
alpha24seven:I am not going to respond further to your posts UNLESS you provide links. Your claims of FACTS are have little credibility especially when in some cases (like Prop 87) they were essentially half-truths designed to instill fear among the voters, who have approved much more costly initiatives. To me 'everyone knows' is not good enough; if it is truly the case it should not take more than 30 seconds to find a link to a credible source.
1. Net Zero and Solar System Costs:
I am not sure I follow your arguments about the cost of the solar systems. On one hand you say net-zero systems are abundant and on the other hand you say that solar is too expensive because of incorrectly applied subsidies. Sure if you are willing to pay 3-4x the cost of PG&E electricity in financing your net-zero system, you can get there, but for anything reasonable (cost < 1.5x PG&E electricity), net-zero is not feasible. I had tried three different vendors in Fall of 2006, but could not get to less than 1.5x PG&E costs after all the rebates/credits. Today with HE loans are much harder and expensive to get, the costs are even higher. Do everyone a favor and get a quote today instead of spreading misinformation under an anonymous alias.
2. Your audacity in spreading misinformation about VCs is indeed an eye-opener to me.
(a)
The first news about Calpers potentially investing in Khosla Ventures emerged about a month ago. Until now then *ALL* the money and the investments were from his or his families/friends' wealth. Further Calpers will be a limited partner. But you make it seem that the guy has been looting pension funds and blowing their money in pie in the sky idea.
72.14.205.104/search?q...
(b)
You continue to claim, in spite of being called out, that the ventures financed from Prop 87s investment fund would not have given the state an equity state. You also say that it was VCs primarily who pushed Prop 87, when the biggest donor for Prop 87 was file producer/real estate developer Steve Bing who has donated to similar causes before. Further you believe that the funds to help state residents to replace existing systems with newer technology would have helped companies funded by VCs via Prop 87 funds. Do you have *ANY* idea of how long a VC funded company would take to commercialize a new technology and make it mass-market? Prop 87 had a ten year horizon and most of the money for consumer assistance would have gone to existing technologies in the market or which were ready to come to the market. It would not have gone to products based on pie in the sky technologies which are still in the lab, or in the mind of VCs and a long time away from commercial use.
(c) Investments: Do everyone a favor and find the percentage of GDP being invested in path-breaking research today when compared to the 1960s-1970s. Over the past few decades, the pay-back horizon on most investments has shrunk to a point, where our ability to be a pioneer fundamental research is under serious threat. If Khosla puts his own money in pie in the sky idea, I laud him. The proof is in the pudding: Do you wonder why researchers are contacting him, an individual, rather than rely on traditional sources?
(3) Big Oil and Renewable Energy:
Under the broad principles of the current proposal, firms who invest in renewable energy (like BP as you claim) will get a credit for that investment and not be taxed on that portion. It is not just renewable energy; firms who invest in new refineries will not be taxed. So if BP is indeed investing, the purpose of the initiative is already achieved and BP's tax bill will be proportionally reduced.
And regarding green BP: The money spent in the BP's Green Image ad campaign is in the similar range as the money actually invested in renewable energy! Taking a page out of your book, ' and that is a FACT which everyone but you know'
(4) And finally, this is not about solar energy; it is about getting Big Oil to put their immense financial and political muscle to work in helping the nation get out of the mess we are in. Even if alternative energy picks up big time, it will take a LONG time for the role of oil in the world economy to become insignificant; a century of investment in an oil based infrastructure ensures that. A few billion in investments in new technologies, will not alter their current balance sheets in any significant manner; nor will it destroy demand for oil when billions in Asia integrate with the modern economy. And it is very likely their new investments in renewables are going to be in *LONG TERM* share-holder interest of Big Oil companies too.
Big Oil has benefited a lot from the current system; it is time they put their profits to work in national interest instead of playing spoil-sport, while the transfer of wealth to countries amicable to our interests spirals upwards. Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
More distortions Vikram. I'm beginning to doubt your reading comprehension or maybe it is you are trying to purposely distort others and or spread misinformation about others.1) The oil industry has big skin in the renewable energy business. Maybe not to your liking or the unwashed masses that fall victim to the never ending innuendo that big oil is out to get them. I've toured the BP solar plant in Linthicum. Shell is a huge player in PV. I think you've fixated on Exxon and are painting the entire oil industry (aka "Big Oil" in your parlance) with the same brush. This is my point exactly. The oil industry IS doing much in renewables but commentary from you and many others make it sound as if they are not only -- not -- involved but on a constant Jihad to kill renewables which is completely false.
2) Re the VC input on the CA legislation. So tell us then who would be funding the start ups (commercial non-academic) Tell us who would be choosing the winning ideas for funding and tell us who would then be administrating the start ups to the liquidity event. Now we all know it is the VC community except again for maybe you. Apparently there is some phantom government committee/apparatus never mentioned in any of the legislation that would suddenly show up and fund the commercial start ups. It's the VCs and you know it. VCs make money on the exit. Bada boom. What is so hard for you to understand about this?
3) I take no aim at investors in RE. Again reread my posts. You are distorting what I've said to make dissociative point. I never assailed any investors in RE. I assailed subsidies that are not needed that are actually taken directly from the poor and disadvantaged every single month in their utility bill to help a rich homeowner get a shiny new PV system on his roof. AND I'm against any subsidy that would accomplish this while zeroing the monthly utility bill of the rich guy while the disadvantaged ratepayer has no relief on their monthly utility bill. It is wrong and not in the spirit of fair play nor in good taste. MANY in the solar industry wince knowing this is the case but as I've said getting off the gravy train ain't easy...
4) I NEVER said VCs were charlatans! Again you misrepresent and distort. My posts are right there for the reading. I said that this legislation was a charlatan enterprise. I've consistently said the VC system is fantastic and that we don't need new taxes/legislation for renewables because the VC system works so well. ANYBODY with a good RE idea can get venture funded today. It isn't lack of investment money! It is lack of good solid ideas! More money isn't the answer. More money would just end up creating a super RE bubble like "green" Webvans and dogfood.com. C'mon everyone knows there is tons of money in and going into cleantech. Are you somehow suggesting that VCs will give up their carry on these deals because they are great guys out to save the environment. It is about green -- green as in money green. Laughable...
5) Haven't you heard of NREL? How about the great & fantastic work done at Argonne National Labs? You continue to objectify Khosla as some sort of knight. You then go on to distort again this whole "halo" angle for him saying that "he only uses his own money on these pie in the sky ideas" which is completely false. As I mentioned (and either you do know or are purposely misleading by not including) that he took $640mm from CALPERS public retirement fund to invest in cleantech. So not only he is raising capital but he is from public entities and their retirement funds. Why are you not mentioning and purposely sailing past this? This is what he should have done in the first place instead of tarnishing his reputation with the failed legislation. A proper venture/limited partner relationship whereby everybody knows where everybody stands instead of some poorly constructed attempt to patronize the public into bilking hundreds of millions out of the oil industry as synthetic limited partner investors. Scandalous and shameful.
6) I live in California and for you to say that people aren't zeroing their bills with net metering is ridiculous. I would say it is indicative of your body of knowledge in the entire area. Don't you realize that it is one of the largest selling point on the residential side. Seriously if you really think that people aren't taking advantage of net metering and driving their bills to zero (Appropriately sized pv array) then why are you making all this high minded fuss about "Americas energy shame". Understand the basics first. You can zero your bill. You will not get paid for more than you produce put back on the grid.
What you should understand in this business is that the model has already shifted. The investment community doesn't want to engage big oil on development. I will repeat this revelation. NO -- the RE industry and the investment community doesn't want oil involved now. Why? Because investors need an exit and who better than the oil industry sitting on record cash. Consider a disruptive technology that could threaten top line revenue to a major oil company. What will happen? The VCs will shop this company to the oil company for a 1,000 exit! We need the oil industry to horde cash because they are going to be the buyers of all this new technology eventually. Don't think for a single minute Exxon is going to sit idly by and go out of business when some new technology hits the street. These are once oil companies and now they are energy companies. Look at BPs "beyond petroleum" See, everybody in the RE space knows this is the strategy now after the last prop 87 debacle but it doesn't quiet down the chorus of guys like you that still push for something not needed, not wanted and completely non beneficial to grow the industry. I know of one very succesful solar that pulled working their S-1 because the IPO market is weak and they can hold out for a much better (and easy) deal shopping the co to a big energy conglomerate. Consolidation is right around the corner.
You and I want the same thing. I want solar to kick ass and take names (believe me) but we aren't going to get there messing about with all these subsidies. They are drag on the future development. Can you imagine if Dell and HP were subsidized approx 50% for pc's? You're wrist watch would have more processing power and they'd cost $30k and be the size of a Volkswagen. Solar is part of the semi industry yet it DOES-NOT-COMPETE on price or specs because it is propped up by subsidies. Don't you realize that if solar dropped like a stone that it would take the fight directly to your nemesis big oil (and coal, and nuclear, natgas). Plug in hybrids would be common place charged by inexpensive rooftop arrays but that is NOT the case because of -- price. Look at atypical PV system. Decidedly low tech. Absolutely no way it should be priced at $9-10 kWh installed (before rebate) This all may be academic anyways if the promise of Nanosolar is real. They are shipping at .99 per watt but lets see if it holds up in the field. If so the energy revolution is upon us.
I will address you here but I will not write any articles because I'm well known in the solar industry and I'm not going on the record by name with all this -- yet.
Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
alpha24seven:0. This article is about oil companies, and their potential role beyond oil. For some reason you believe that persuading Oil companies to support renewable energy is because of some reflexive hatred of Oil Companies. As an individual who loves driving, let me assure you I have nothing against oil per se; I do however feel that Big Oil can do a lot more to further our national interests. Also it is not just about solar energy but alternative and renewable energy sources.
1. To set the record clear, I haven't even watched the Inconvenient Truth. This article is also not about partisan politics (I am an independent). It is about getting oil companies to get some skin in the renewable energy train which will help end the partisan gridlock and move our country forward towards a more balanced energy policy.
2. You say "The FACT is that the VCs would have received hundreds of million in free money and everybody knows it "; However you have been unable to dig even a SINGLE official document supporting that. Unfortunately I do not believe in 'facts which everyone knows' if they are not supported by verifiable proof.
3. Further you continue to take aim in investors in renewable energy and any benefits which investors in these companies will get because of government sponsored incentives. Should incentives and subsidies only help investors in oil companies? You call VCs charlatans, when at least one of them is putting millions of his own money at stake in supporting new research, some in projects which even he believes are just pie in the sky. BTW, this was the same guy who had the integrity of going to a Goldman Sachs conference and state that many of the high flyers of the tech bubble will crash, six months before the crash began when he and his firm were big investors in the same firms.
4. Historically the support of more forward looking research (or promising pie in the sky ideas) was driven by government funding or by the research budgets of large corporations. It is indeed a sad day for our country when VCs are putting their own money in pursuing this research. This does not bode well for our nation's technological leadership.
5. PG&E changed its rate structure in 2006 so that the power bought back by it no longer was at an attractive rate; as a result a majority of home with solar installation, even those which do not use power at the peak hours, will not get a net zero bill.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
6. If you believe that the current policies to support the solar industry needs to catch up with the ground reality, then please do educate the rest of us by writing an article focussing on the problem areas. More importantly, please support your claims by appropriate links instead of unverifiable claims of FACTs which everyone knows. Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
C'mon VikramI'm beginning to see this pattern whereby you try and discredit others opinion because they differ from yours. You keep saying I'm using half truths and propaganda but that is coming from someone that doesn't understand the industry from an inside perspective as I do. Where you an invited guest to the last Vote Solar party in San Francisco? I don't remember meeting you there. The fact is you have a naive view and I will dare say myopic view of how the solar industry works. Being an insider, I do not . What really burns me is that if this industry were to shed the subsidies then the solar revolution would really begin because everybody would compete on price and the cost per installed watt would plummet. You just go around yelling "we need more subsidies to make this work" when in FACT it is just the opposite.
1) The syntax argument is in full effect. Why do you over intellectualize the whole wording regarding "VC". You and everybody else knows damned well that the VC community was the front end to the start up funding. Why do you even question that? Do you just want to be argumentative? For goodness sake, look at the main funding and the architects of the legislation -- VCs.
2) Who gives a damned what happened in the past regarding profitability for the solars. The FACT is today that most are wildly succesful and profitable and still getting their product subsidized by approx 50% from rate and taxpayers. Are you suggesting that there should be a several year overlap of subsidy just because the solars had a rough beginning? What the hell is that?
3) You accurately describe what subsidies and incentives are for. In a word, they are used to achieve scale. They worked. We have scale. We have a very robust industry that no longer needs subsidies by your own description. As far as class warfare and the wealthy paying the majority of the taxes and they should be able to get some back is utter rubbish. Why don't you tell the struggling family that they should kick in their monthly PG&E bill to help some rich guy zero his utility bill. Please...
4) You are stuck on this whole "big oil crushed the renewable incentive scheme on lies and deceit". You act like a good foot soldier in the "Inconvenient Truth" army. Another example of your using straw man arguments. The FACT is that the VCs would have received hundreds of million in free money and everybody knows it -- except for some reason you. You say that isn't true and then go on to base the rest of your position on big oil outspending the opponents and this spending is what caused people to believe the VCs would get a windfall. The problem is they -- would -- have got a windfall and there is no lie, half truth, proganda to that at all. It is a 100% fact.
Since we are talking misrepresentation and distortion, let's look at what you said in your original piece regarding the tax credit extensions and how you alluded to it being part of a concerted effort to hold back renewable energy by big oil/Republicans (I'll presume) The FACT is that those tax extensions were removed by Reed and Pelosi originally. The industry screamed bloody murder and then they have been trying to get the tax credits extended by a series of legislative additions doomed to fail at the hands of the Republicans. It was a power play led by the Dems! They threw solar under the bus so they could extract maximum political gain. They knew that the extensions would fail but they wanted to be able to say "we took on the Repubs and big oil for renewable energy but we were voted down again by the people trying to hold it down" What a crock. EVERYBODY in the solar industry knows exactly what happened and I'll just say that the Democratic leadership isn't thought highly of right now. But you posit that it was as the Dems said, a big plot to pull renewables down which is a complete distortion on your part. Then you go on to mention that all your positions can be proven through links. Right. You can link to the subsidy strucutre and see that it is paid for by renters and the disadvantaged with no chance of getting solar or a zeroed utility bill -- check. You can link to the proof these companies are now profitable -- check. You can link to articles from inside the solar industry in disgust of Congress for using solar as a political tool -- check. So you go on to allude and distort that somehow what I'm saying isn't verifiable so again as you've said several times, I'm telling half truths and propagating misinformation. Pure crap.
I guess at the highest level I'm not taking your incessant drone of how I am telling half truths and propagating misinformation because in FACT I'm not and actually you are becasue quite simply I don't really think you understand how this actually works. The nitty gritty details and not some fanciful "concept" of the tired old big oil out to get everybody. Simply and utterly false and a misconception that keeps being passed around as some sort of urban legend truth.
Here's a test. If you know so much about this, tell us the two things that keep solar execs up at night and the new fear striking the heart of the wind industry. All the insiders whisper these things so lets see what you really know other than your glammed up version of the tired old "If only America could be proud and take the reigns back from the profiteers" blah blah blah. It's all so very tired and boring to keep hearing the sound byte intellectuals constantly pass it around like cheap booze at a camp fire. Answer the questions and we will see what you really know.
Reply
Want to Profit from Sky-High Oil? Avoid the Majors [view article]
All valid and interesting comments. APC, APA, etc. all look to be brides sometime in the near future. Oil service and exploration stocks look equally attractive. There is one paradigm changer that was not discussed - what happens if congress changes the drilling rules and opens up vast areas of the US for E&P? The majors seem the likely candidates to win these leases. Given the broohaha over Boeing/Airbus tanker contract, I can't see any leases going to foreign majors. So the question is, could the US majors see new life from voter pressure on congress to DO SOMETHING. ReplyWant to Profit from Sky-High Oil? Avoid the Majors [view article]
Could a lot of the oi majors having less production be from getting kick out of some countries off shore oil field..not too mention some inlard fields..Russia comes too mind. ReplyWant to Profit from Sky-High Oil? Avoid the Majors [view article]
Marathon is not going anywhere pricewise. Too much refining cost to make any good numbers. Perception of the company is that it is a refiner and retailer. Neither make good stock price advancements. ReplyWant to Profit from Sky-High Oil? Avoid the Majors [view article]
Oil?.....yes! Natural Gas, however, is missing from your equation. As a geologist for one of the majors, I can assure you there are significant volumes of US domestic natural gas yet to be discovered in under explored deep basins and under developed fields. 3D Seismic and other technologies make these low risk, high yield targets very economic at today's prices. For onshore natural gas, we can find it and flow it to market in a 1 to 5 years. It is just a matter of converting our mode of transportation and energy use from gasoline/diesel to methane. ReplyCan Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
continued....5. It seems in your eyes, the rules should be different for oil and other industries when it comes to running a business. It is OK for oil companies to:
- have a vise like grip on our energy policy
- use their political and monetary muscle to oppose new technologies
- get the political and military support available to nationalized industries with little recognition of their responsibilities in return, -continue to get new subsidies while their reserves dwindle due to reduced investments
However, if the investors in competing technologies, which will:
- help our nation's economy by reducing energy costs
- restore our position as a technology leader
- strengthen our nation's strategic position
- and also help the environment
try for some government support, they are charlatans? Reply
ator
Want to Profit from Sky-High Oil? Avoid the Majors [view article]
The only sort of "major" to profit big from is Petrobras (PBR)... ready to make one of its amazing leaps up 35% or so into earnings late July - august... PBR is not really a "major" but now larger than Microsoft in many categories, market cap, revenue, exponential profit growth... PBR always goes down 18% or so, then back up 35% or so into an just after earnings......so to feel good about being in a large Oil company, yet have tremendous exponential profit growth and share price rise, PBR is the only one to own... it will start its usual rise into earnings in the next week or two, then as analysts are recently predicting, it will rise to around $95 per share... we PBR longs have seen this over and over again... the same "controversial&qu... issues have been around since PBR was selling for $18 per share... the controversies about Brazilian gov ownership if much of PBR shares is not news, it is like owning a piece of Saudi oil/gov oil, no difference... a nice thing to be a part of in the future... true news on PBR is really fantastic, Barrons last week had it on the cover page, and restated that it is a must own for oil, especially during this "'opportunity pullback. Read Barrons on this... best to all of you... Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
alpha24seven:0. My arguments are supported by facts and links to documents which confirm them. Your arguments are based on unverified assumptions, which more often are wrong. There is nothing 'smart guy' about my posts; they contain arguments built on top of verifiable facts.
1. You asked me to read the drafts for Prop 87 and I read it to prove that there is no mention of money even going to VCs; any claim you make beyond that is a strawman proposal, based on an unverified assumption followed by an argument which defies past precedent. Half-truths at the best, deceptive propaganda at the worst.
2. You claim that the solar industry is making extraordinary profits. Till recently (2-3 years ago), most solar companies, even the high-flyers of today were start-ups with a long history of struggle. It is only in the past 2-3 years that the solar industry has taken off, along with the price of oil. Sunpower was not profitable till 2006
finance.aol.com/earnin...
FirstSolar was not profitable till 2007
finance.aol.com/earnin...
3. Government Subsidies are designed as a policy tool to encourage the use of new products early in their adoption cycle. The subsidies help reduce the pricing gap between an established product with economies of scale and a new product with a small market, to make them more attractive to early adopters. The early adopters of any expensive technology are likely to be more affluent apart from being socially conscious. Your class warfare argument ignores the fact remains that it is the affluent who pay a bulk of the taxes in the USA. There is nothing wrong in them getting some of the tax back to help nurture an industry which will help the less affluent in the long term.
4. You wrote "You are basically rehashing what we already defeated ..". During my discussion with you, I have learned a lot about the campaign used to defeat Prop 87, and have realized that most of the arguments used do not stand up to any detailed scrutiny. The oil industry used its wealth to outspend the proponents by a factor of 2-3x, to spread a message of fear (gas prices will go up, when TX, LA, AK charge a much higher tax), false arguments (how government employees will suffer because they get no dibs), and outright defamation (VCs getting free money). Californians are progressive in nature; they passed the stem cell proposal even though it was coming out of their own pocket. However Prop 87 failed even though it would have bought more money into the state, thanks to the half-truths. Just another illustration of the power of Big Oil and their ability to hinder the growth of renewable energy while their own reserves are depleting Reply
Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? [view article]
@ VikramYou are simply trying to hard to come off as this really "smart guy". To the point of being of obnoxious. You are now engaging in straw man and syntax arguments which is quite unfortunate. This is not high school debate.
Look, if you post a thesis here then you must accept that people with real connections and ties to this industry will counter your positions. The reason we are discussing past proposed legislation is because it was full vetted and defeated. You are basically rehashing what we already defeated with the notion of "tax big oil to pay for renewables". I'm not sure why you wouldn't understand why are discussing this as it is extremely relevant.
I'm not anti VC at all. Reread my posts. I'm anti charlatan which are two completely different things.
You completely missed the point about solar subsidies. I was talking about the solar industry gaming the system to insure that they were able to have a subsidy. This subsidy is paid for by the poor and disadvantaged to the benefit of the upwardly mobile. The entire "subsidy scheme" was prepared by the solar industry on their behalf. I'm sorry but it is an undeniable fact and many in the solar industry consider it to be their own Sword of Damocles. But of course that still doesn't stop them from pushing for money which is the shame in it all. Can you explain how this industry is printing million and billionaires and has extraordinary profit yet still screams that would die immediately if the subsidies ended? I'm guessing this where you will fly into the "well what about the oil subsidies" which is a completely unintelligent correlation considering they are akin to bowling balls and cotton balls...
I think you are a pretty book smart guy, but street smarts, not so much...
Let's adds some comedy to this. I'll be Thornton Melon (Rodney Dangerfield) and you will be Dr. Barbay from that classic lecture hall scene where the Dr. is lecturing the students on how business "works" not realizing that Thornton (who is a very succesful real businessman) actually schools him on the way things REALLY work. The Back to School movie starring Dangerfield is hilarious movie. I'd really recommend you see it.
This about sums it all up.
Thornton Melon: Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: Oh really? Like what for instance?
Thornton Melon: First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon! Maybe bribes, kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how YOU do business! But they are NOT part of the legitimate business world! And they are certainly not part of anything I am doing in this class. Do I make myself clear, Mr. Melon! Reply