or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anantksundaram

Oh, they have that one covered: it'll be a 'beta.'
Does this company have a strategy? If so, someone please enlighten me on what it is...
What if he could have spent it instead on, say, buying a plot of land and erecting a giant 50-foot statue of himself in gold with an inscription in the base that said "Built the most valuable company on earth"? Do you think that a donating to charity -- even if after death -- would be a more selfless act?
All forms of energy have subsidies of some sort in them. How come you never felt unhappy before, when just fossil fuels were being used?
That's certainly a better answer than presenting us with bogus numbers...
LOL. If you think comparison of cost-per-unit capacity is how you make a rational financial decision, then: 1) Duh, to you. 2) Duh, to the industry. Add: Also, you do not seem to understand that Apple's $840 investment million buys it 45% of the power produced by this facility for the next 15 years, and if this report is to be believed, 100% of the power from years 16-25 (which we did not know before). It is, therefore, utterly stupid to think that this just buys 'capacity.'
The life cycle carbon impacts for solar are substantially less than that for fossil fuels. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html (Nuclear does best on that score, though.)
Nonsense. See above.
Your numbers are totally off. 1) I have absolutely no idea why you would use the numbers from a private investment bank such as Lazard, when you can straight to the source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. You'll notice for example that, compared to a combined coal/gas plant (which would be the default technology of choice today), LCOE for solar PV -- without subsidies -- is 13% greater. With subsidies (of which I am not a big fan, but then we...
Search for "4th gen nuclear" and take it from there...
New Posts  All Forums: