Quote:
Originally Posted by wookster
Im not promoting it either way, but a simple google search shows that its mostly funded by Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies like State Farm, Prudential and Pfizer. Although yes, it looks like Exxon has contributed a bit as well but it doesn't appear that "big oil" as you put is actually the majority contributors.
Regardless, I don't care who funds it as long as what is printed is factual, and this appears to be factual and provides real theory like the Benz Limit etc. But please feel free to point out anything that isn't factual and provide some evidence other than just your opinion and I'll be happy to read that as well.
|
So the first thing that isn’t factual is saying that 1 million on a Drilling rig will produce 300 Mkwh of electricity then comparing the cost to solar
Panel costs. The conversion of each of these energy sources to the grid has completely different costs and ignoring and presenting it as a six times cost
Difference between the two just isn’t factual based on the cost of actually purchasing solar energy.
Even the Benz limit and photovoltaic limit stuff assumes that we can’t get better at manufacturing wind and solar panels. There is still a theoretical 25% or so left on efficiency after that a 50% reduction in manufacturing and installation would reduce costs 4 fold which would put it far cheaper than coal:NG. The issue comes from the assumption that we need multiple 10 fold advancements like computers and telecom had. We don’t.
So Id go with the article is pretty terrible regardless of source. It takes factual theory and Strawmams