Comments by "Samson Soturian" (@samsonsoturian6013) on "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" channel.

  1.  @cp37373  Don't be silly. Power generation heavily favors economies of scale. It's a fact that cost Edison a lot of money back in the day
    21
  2. No one is becoming energy independent. That breaks basic economics
    10
  3. This video completely ignores the title and makes no attempt to explain the price of solar panels. He simply goes on about how big they've gotten and speculates how big they'll get as if he owns stock options on these companies
    6
  4. If the sun is warm enough to break a solar panel, it's warm enough you don't need fancy heaters
    4
  5. You mean besides heavy government subsidies bring down overall costs by ~30%?
    4
  6. If that happens there'll simply be no incentive to fund research. Recall that private corporations fund much of all practical science and they must turn a profit just to exist.
    4
  7. Voice of experience, windmills suck
    4
  8. That 17% "non-renewable" includes nuclear reactors, I presume?
    3
  9. Aerogel is one of those exotic materials that would be awesome if they actually worked in the real world.
    3
  10. With so many random guesses some idiot was right
    2
  11. ​ @grimaffiliations3671 come on. We all know you'd say that even if you knew it wasn't so.
    2
  12.  @grimaffiliations3671  liars burn in hell. It isn't even the cheapest WITH subsidies given how long most of these things last. Although that depends where you buy then
    2
  13. There's one problem with your assessment: No one has predicted paradigm shifts before they occur.
    2
  14.  @joeboxter3635  literally no one said that
    2
  15. Seriously, though. They just pick oddly specific times and places until they find something that looks like an up trend even though all of these charts contradict each other
    2
  16. Volcanoes produce several times more at least.
    2
  17. ​ @cp37373 what's with the taunt? I ain't on anyone's side here. Sycophancy on your part is a sign of dishonesty
    2
  18. Sulpher is cheap because it's an impurity that must be removed from gasoline and especially diesel. Also on select extinct volcanos chunks of pure sulphur can but pulled from the ground.
    1
  19. Matt, Ever think about the logistics of this green energy? Obviously, they're making the new stuff much faster than old stuff is going offline, so at what point do we simply produce more energy than we can use? This is important because most people install solar panels intending to recover the costs over time, which simply won't happen if electricity is stupid cheap due to overproduction.
    1
  20.  @cp37373  dude, the person they are talking about is a known fake guru scammer.
    1
  21. Quit getting your info on farming from politicized environment science magazines. Those guys wouldn't even know what the manure spreader is for.
    1
  22. Dear Matt Ferrell: You should be highly skeptical about people working on "the future of agriculture" because consistently said people turn out to not know much about agriculture. These are scientists, not farmers.
    1
  23. Matt, Ever think about doing a video on nuclear energy research?
    1
  24. We already have that. It's called wood.
    1
  25. Population size is dictated by food supply, not the other way around.
    1
  26. You could do an episode on lasers. Even the US Navy and Israeli army are having trouble weaponizing lasers even though they are efficient enough to shoot down rockets. The reason is their size is limited because the lasing cavity cannot be bigger than the wavelength of light they're using, so current laser weapons are using dozens of smaller lasers being focused through incredibly complicated optics into a single laser.
    1
  27. Rotating detonation has nothing to do with 3D printing. That goon is just pumping a bubble
    1
  28. A major factor, but not the only one
    1
  29. I didn't. You can say anything at all and get a like on this topic @ayyappanchithambaram4575 
    1
  30. A strange argument since this very channel showed a payoff timeframe of more than twice that because of deteriation of panels and the huge cost of installation. The cheap Chinese junk was advertised as being that profitable but most of that stuff was broken when sold and was just a Ponzi scheme. Also, mass adoption would bring down energy prices to near zero since all the old stuff still works @Ahwleung. 
    1
  31. Your info is years outdated. That Ponzi broke ages ago, electric EVs are China's current Ponzi @saiforos7928 
    1
  32. People like talking about becoming energy independent but no one, not even you, is willing to pay for it. It's simply not worth paying construction guys to come to your house when a corporation could sell it cheaper. @ericolens3 
    1
  33. It doesn't fucking matter if it is doable, what matters is if it is profitable. Electricity heavily favors economies of scale because you can have full time repairmen and more energy efficient generation and distribution and a whole lot less parts (more parts = more manufacturing/repair costs). @paul1979uk2000 
    1
  34. Ok, you're officially spouting jargon you don't understand @Elkarlo77 
    1
  35.  @solarcabin  how much did you lose?
    1
  36.  @vidpetrovic05  you have been on Reddit too long
    1
  37.  @barryhamm3414  that is a flat contradiction of terms
    1
  38. The irony is estounding
    1
  39. Sounds like it'd be better at making barns than houses.
    1
  40. That should show how much of a farce the green revolution is. Even in hardcore states they still have a problem when cut off from cheap gas. The same people that throw things at oil drillers for making money will throw things at government buildings for banning gas
    1
  41. BUBBLES!!!!! BUBBLESBUBBLESBUBBLES [Snap] My bubbles.
    1
  42. Why we spending so much on this when a man made lake does the same job for a fraction the cost?
    1
  43. Those will never be used
    1
  44. He doesn't care. He's got too many call options on green energy stocks
    1
  45. ​@cp37373 lose the rhetoric. You will recall that President Obama introduced tax breaks to every stage of making and installing solar panels up to 30% of total tax burden. There are also grants and local subsidies involved, but a lot of these solar companies are losing money anyway so they have no income taxes.
    1
  46.  @cp37373  lose the insult contest. We both know you wouldn't even know what universities do to get research funding
    1
  47.  @grimaffiliations3671  Lose the spam behavior. We all know you're just pumping a stock you hold
    1
  48. Let's be frank. Solar panels aren't the best investment as it takes years just to break even and the only reason they're affordable are subsidies. Before you swoon, understand the whole GLOBAL solar industry is valued at 146 billion dollars while US state and federal governments provide about 39 billion in tax refunds to both buyers and sellers of solar. Covers up to 30% of the costs of installation.
    1
  49. Solar is still debilitatingly expensive despite most of their profits coming from Federal subsidies.
    1
  50.  @baronvonlimbourgh1716  that's a bit of an exaggeration, but yes because subsidies which cover roughly 30% of costs.
    1