‘Scandalous’ Solyndra Program Actually Earned Taxpayers A $5 Billion Profit

[ScienceRocks]

Solar is slowly coming around to bite the limited government fools. Solar will be 10-15% of our energy mix by 2030!

 

[Listening]

Solar is slowly coming around to bite the limited government fools. Solar will be 10-15% of our energy mix by 2030!

Which will be great. If renewable can stand on it's own.....that is fantastic.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

“It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.

Wind right now can beat the converntional fuels. Solar is less than two years from doing the same.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.brattle.com/system/news/..._Distributed_Electricity_Storage_in_Texas.pdf

Our analysis shows that deploying electricity storage on distribution systems across Texas could provide substantial net benefits to the state. We estimate that up to 5,000 MW (15,000 MWh, assuming a three-to-one ratio of storage to discharge capability) of grid-integrated, distributed electricity storage would be cost effective from an ERCOT system-wide societal perspective based on a forecast of installed cost of storage of approximately $350/kWh. Our analysis assumes that the storage deployment plan will be developed to capture as much benefits as possible by integrating value from increasing customer reliability, improving the T&D systems, and transacting in the wholesale power markets. Our analysis accounts for the net impact that deploying storage would have on generation investments in ERCOT’s “energy-only” wholesale
electricity market. The resulting generation investment response sustains market prices
sufficient to support the development of the generating capacity necessary to maintain ERCOT’s resource adequacy.

We also evaluate the benefits of grid-integrated storage deployed by TDSPs from an average electricity customer’s perspective. Our analysis shows that deploying 3,000 MW (9,000 MWh) of storage across ERCOT (with 1,000 MW on Oncor’s system) would reduce residential customer bills slightly and provide additional reliability benefits in the form of reduced power outages for customers located in areas where storage is installed. Considering both the impact on electricity bills and improved reliability of grid-integrated storage, total customer benefits would significantly exceed costs. However, while beneficial from an integrated, system-wide perspective, an efficient scale of storage deployment would not be reached if deployed solely by merchant developers in the wholesale market, by retail customers, or only for capturing T&D benefits.

And this is the development that will make renewables the primary source of electrical energy in the next generation.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Expected". A very large word that never seems to work out the way the government thinks it will. Show me a single government program that came in on time and on budget. Go ahead, I dare you.

Here's one that came in ten times over budget, did not achieve it's prime objective, and came in so late that the participants were given up for dead. It was called the Corps of Discovery.

Where is it?

Look it up, old fool.

 

[rdean]

Good god the conservative response to this thread, while not surprising, is still very pathetic. You people are so unreal lol. You can't swallow your pride for 30 seconds and just admit this was a good thing? Sure it isn't something worthy enough for Obama to gloat about, but you can't even admit it was even a small good thing. You just remain in denial like children. Sorry, but yes most of you are reacting to this thread like children.

You want to take a whack at the IRR calculation..Mr. Mouth.

Please give it a shot.

Still waiting asswipe.

So essentially you're asking me to, on my own, replicate the results of this report and spell it out how it came to that conclusion?

Tell me, if you were me, would you do something like that? Would you do all that economic calculation just because some asshole (you) online can't come up with their own argument against it?

Actually, I know the answer....I've already posted the range.

I just want to know if you realize how stupid it is to claim a 5 billion dollar profit on a 32 billion dollar investment over 22 years.

Here is some of the math:

5/32 * 100 = 15%.

Now spread that over 22 years and it's less than 1% per year (0.7%).

Now an IRR calc will probably show a negative interest rate because your returned principle has lost value.

So, go fuck yourself and have a day.

If you were an investment adviser...you'd pretty much be unemployable.

You're not an investment adviser and you're unemployable.

 

[rdean]

Gov't shutdown costs of $24 billion are conservative. Forget the memorial lol, hater dupes. How much damage does 1% growth do every damn time it was threatened? MORONS!

The Costs of the Government Shutdown - ABC News
abcnews.go.com › ABC News Blogs › Politics › The Note
ABC News
Oct 17, 2013 - The 16-day government shutdown is over, but the country has taken at least ... wages and productivity, but all the ripple effects and costs as well.
►
Government Shutdown Cost $24 Billion, According to ...
swampland.time.com/.../heres-what-the-government-shutdown-cost...
Time
Oct 17, 2013 - Here's How Much The Government Shutdown Cost The Economy ..... than they EVER contribute....but "KEEP THE GOV'T OUT OF MY LIFE".
Marco Rubio Leads the Threat for Another Gov't Shutdown ...
bluenationreview.com/marco-rubio-leads-threat-another-govt-shutdown-...
Oct 14, 2014 - The last Republican government shutdown cost this nation a massive $24 billion dollars according to the financial ratings agency Standard ...
Report: Gov't Shutdown Proved Costly to Taxpayers ...
realtormag.realtor.org › News & Commentary › Daily News
Nov 13, 2013 - The Obama administration issued a report detailing the impact of the two-week government shutdown in October that furloughed government ...

I see no links to your complete and utter bullshit. C'mon moron. You can do better than that can't you? Waving your hands and pulling numbers out of your ass might be enough for twits like you but we adults need more.

how the government shutdown costs money - Google Search

Pick your own link. There are so many. Any total and complete drooling idiot moron could do such a simple search. Too bad it was way beyond your meager talent. No wonder you're frustrated.

Yes, and you'll get all the bullshit that you dine on nightly.

Fuck, you are stupid.

Still don't know shit about downholing Chlorine ?

Asswipe.

You said:
Fuck, you are stupid.

Still don't know shit about downholing Chlorine ?

I said: Downholing Chlorine? I admit, there are two areas where you are the expert. Downholing and Cornholing. Congratulations on your remarkable achievement.

Was this your attempt at humor ?

Didn't work.

Yes, you don't know shit about what you mouthing off about.

Government shutdowns cost money: The newest in the liberal line of bullshit eats.

That's funny, the two Republicans I showed it to laughed.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Solyndra gave solar a bad name. The facility had multi-million dollar marble floors, expensive art on the walls, and employees got personal robots. The conference room had glass walls that turned opaque with the flick of a switch. Basically, they suffered from mismanagement, spending money on anything and everything when they got federal loan guarantees.

Despite Solyndra, solar is kicking ass in California. We're dominating the nation in rooftop solar installations. And as with all tech revolutions, the nation will eventually follow.

 

[healthmyths]

The long Republican nightmare continues!

‘Scandalous’ Solyndra Program Actually Earned Taxpayers A $5 Billion Profit

The much-maligned government program that funded the failed solar tech company Solyndra is expected to make taxpayers a $5 to $6 billion return, Bloomberg Businessweek reported on Wednesday.

The loan program is run out of the Department of Energy (DOE), and covers a large umbrella of investments to encourage green energy and low-carbon technologies. According to Businessweek, the expected positive returns on those investments are detailed in a new report DOE will be releasing, perhaps as early as Thursday, on the loan program’s performance — the first such estimate the agency has made of the fruits of its efforts.

The program has the authority to spend as much as $40 billion, and has allocated $32.4 billion of that to a portfolio with dozens of specific projects. Half of the $32.4 billion has already been paid out, in loans that average a 22-year lifecycle. The Energy Department expects the full $5 to $6 billion return to come in over that total time period. But $3.5 billion of the principal for those loans has already been paid back by the various companies that received them, and the government has already garnered over $810 million in interest payments. The portfolio’s losses only amount to $780 million so far, and they aren’t expected to rise above $2 billion once everything is said and done — a fraction of the $10 billion in losses the government anticipated when it originally designed the program.

This stands in stark contrast to the image critics painted of the program. In 2011, the solar tech company Solyndra collapsed after receiving $528 million from the program, setting off a political feeding frenzy and embarrassing the White House.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said he thought “about half” the businesses the program invested in had gone out of business. On Tuesday, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) declared that “most of these companies are bankrupt and are no longer in existence, and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.” In point of fact, as of November 2012 only three companies out of several dozen had folded, though a few others were facing financial difficulties. That number has ticked up one more to four failures since. Investigations into the loan program have found no evidence of political manipulation or wrongdoing.

CORRECTION!!! YOUR TITLE IS WRONG!!!
Scandalous’ Solyndra Program Actually Earned Taxpayers A $5 Billion Profit

There never was a "Solyndra Program" DUMMY!

Solyndra as the article points out:
The much-maligned government program that funded the failed solar tech company Solyndra is expected to make taxpayers a $5 to $6 billion

So your title is grossly misleading and those readers that are part of Gruber's "Stupidity of American Voter" bloc not reading any further
think Solyndra WAS not a failure! IT WAS A BANKRUPT corrupt wasteful solar tech company that received $528 million and blew it!

 

[healthmyths]

Solyndra gave solar a bad name. The facility had multi-million dollar marble floors, expensive art on the walls, and employees got personal robots. The conference room had glass walls that turned opaque with the flick of a switch. Basically, they suffered from mismanagement, spending money on anything and everything when they got federal loan guarantees.

Despite Solyndra, solar is kicking ass in California. We're dominating the nation in rooftop solar installations. And as with all tech revolutions, the nation will eventually follow.

So it sounds like utility companies are see lower revenues as more people are getting "free" solar energy...right?
Question for you .... Assume EVERYONE in California had solar panels including all businesses,etc. then what would be the revenues of the Utilities?
How many utility workers would be laid off? Who pays the long term loans the utilities took out to pay for electric generating equipment?
Has that "COST" been included in the "savings" of kicking ass?
This is not a foolish question I hope you comprehend!
Utility companies in Calif. have to pay workers but if there is less demand there will be less workers. If there is less and less demand, at some point
as Obama has wanted..."
So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008
And you are in favor of that?
Remember one of the "cost benefits" of solar that is working to "lower" your costs is the ability to sell back your excess to the utilities.
What happens if the utilities don't have a need to buy back the excess because people like you are using solar panels?
Isn't that a "cost benefit" calculation of solar panels, re-selling to utilities?

 

[dblack]

Corporatism Uber Alles!!!!

 

[healthmyths]

The long Republican nightmare continues!

‘Scandalous’ Solyndra Program Actually Earned Taxpayers A $5 Billion Profit

The much-maligned government program that funded the failed solar tech company Solyndra is expected to make taxpayers a $5 to $6 billion return, Bloomberg Businessweek reported on Wednesday.

The loan program is run out of the Department of Energy (DOE), and covers a large umbrella of investments to encourage green energy and low-carbon technologies. According to Businessweek, the expected positive returns on those investments are detailed in a new report DOE will be releasing, perhaps as early as Thursday, on the loan program’s performance — the first such estimate the agency has made of the fruits of its efforts.

The program has the authority to spend as much as $40 billion, and has allocated $32.4 billion of that to a portfolio with dozens of specific projects. Half of the $32.4 billion has already been paid out, in loans that average a 22-year lifecycle. The Energy Department expects the full $5 to $6 billion return to come in over that total time period. But $3.5 billion of the principal for those loans has already been paid back by the various companies that received them, and the government has already garnered over $810 million in interest payments. The portfolio’s losses only amount to $780 million so far, and they aren’t expected to rise above $2 billion once everything is said and done — a fraction of the $10 billion in losses the government anticipated when it originally designed the program.

This stands in stark contrast to the image critics painted of the program. In 2011, the solar tech company Solyndra collapsed after receiving $528 million from the program, setting off a political feeding frenzy and embarrassing the White House.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said he thought “about half” the businesses the program invested in had gone out of business. On Tuesday, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) declared that “most of these companies are bankrupt and are no longer in existence, and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.” In point of fact, as of November 2012 only three companies out of several dozen had folded, though a few others were facing financial difficulties. That number has ticked up one more to four failures since. Investigations into the loan program have found no evidence of political manipulation or wrongdoing.

I don't believe the figures in the article. As the saying goes, figures don't lie but liars figure! What dipshit named it the "Solyndra Program?"

There never was a "Solyndra Program"!
The OP made that title up to get bogus attention.
When you read closer you see Solyndra is bankrupt company of the "The much-maligned government program"

 

[Treeshepherd]

Solyndra gave solar a bad name. The facility had multi-million dollar marble floors, expensive art on the walls, and employees got personal robots. The conference room had glass walls that turned opaque with the flick of a switch. Basically, they suffered from mismanagement, spending money on anything and everything when they got federal loan guarantees.

Despite Solyndra, solar is kicking ass in California. We're dominating the nation in rooftop solar installations. And as with all tech revolutions, the nation will eventually follow.

So it sounds like utility companies are see lower revenues as more people are getting "free" solar energy...right?
Question for you .... Assume EVERYONE in California had solar panels including all businesses,etc. then what would be the revenues of the Utilities?
How many utility workers would be laid off? Who pays the long term loans the utilities took out to pay for electric generating equipment?
Has that "COST" been included in the "savings" of kicking ass?
This is not a foolish question I hope you comprehend!
Utility companies in Calif. have to pay workers but if there is less demand there will be less workers. If there is less and less demand, at some point
as Obama has wanted..."
So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008
And you are in favor of that?
Remember one of the "cost benefits" of solar that is working to "lower" your costs is the ability to sell back your excess to the utilities.
What happens if the utilities don't have a need to buy back the excess because people like you are using solar panels?
Isn't that a "cost benefit" calculation of solar panels, re-selling to utilities?

Solar modules are not free. Inverters are not free. Trunk cable and fuses are not free. Tax benefits come and go in what is known as the solar coaster.

But yes, solar is a disruptive technology. Netflix was a disruptive technology to the DVD industry. Cars were disruptive to the horse and buggy industry. That's just the way it goes. It doesn't matter if I'm in favor or not.

You're describing the utility death spiral. Rooftop solar has tripled in CA in the last 2 years. Revenues to utilities go down (due also to conservation ). Utilities have to raise prices, driving more to solar. The more people go solar the lower the price of the tech due to economy of scale. Tech breakthroughs lower solar costs. Utility revenues suffer more, and have to raise prices, driving even more to solar.

Am I in favor? Hell yeah. I'd like to see a network of distributed power like a mesh system of micro-grids, sort of like how the internet is a network of thousands of nodes. That's more empowering to individuals and communities, and less vulnerable to cyber attacks. The power company would rather pipe power to the city from gigantic installations.

You're talking about net metering, where people get paid for excess power they generate. That's definitely a cost benefit. Power companies in CA have a monopoly on their respective grids, but not a monopoly on power generation. Since they are publicly held monopolies, they can't discriminate on who they buy power from. Grid linked rooftop solar flows like water to your nearest neighbor sucking power, just like a homeowner pumping water into the water main. But, yeah, someone needs to pay to maintain transmission lines.

 

[healthmyths]

Solyndra gave solar a bad name. The facility had multi-million dollar marble floors, expensive art on the walls, and employees got personal robots. The conference room had glass walls that turned opaque with the flick of a switch. Basically, they suffered from mismanagement, spending money on anything and everything when they got federal loan guarantees.

Despite Solyndra, solar is kicking ass in California. We're dominating the nation in rooftop solar installations. And as with all tech revolutions, the nation will eventually follow.

So it sounds like utility companies are see lower revenues as more people are getting "free" solar energy...right?
Question for you .... Assume EVERYONE in California had solar panels including all businesses,etc. then what would be the revenues of the Utilities?
How many utility workers would be laid off? Who pays the long term loans the utilities took out to pay for electric generating equipment?
Has that "COST" been included in the "savings" of kicking ass?
This is not a foolish question I hope you comprehend!
Utility companies in Calif. have to pay workers but if there is less demand there will be less workers. If there is less and less demand, at some point
as Obama has wanted..."
So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008
And you are in favor of that?
Remember one of the "cost benefits" of solar that is working to "lower" your costs is the ability to sell back your excess to the utilities.
What happens if the utilities don't have a need to buy back the excess because people like you are using solar panels?
Isn't that a "cost benefit" calculation of solar panels, re-selling to utilities?

Solar modules are not free. Inverters are not free. Trunk cable and fuses are not free. Tax benefits come and go in what is known as the solar coaster.

But yes, solar is a disruptive technology. Netflix was a disruptive technology to the DVD industry. Cars were disruptive to the horse and buggy industry. That's just the way it goes. It doesn't matter if I'm in favor or not.

You're describing the utility death spiral. Rooftop solar has tripled in CA in the last 2 years. Revenues to utilities go down (due also to conservation ). Utilities have to raise prices, driving more to solar. The more people go solar the lower the price of the tech due to economy of scale. Tech breakthroughs lower solar costs. Utility revenues suffer more, and have to raise prices, driving even more to solar.

Am I in favor? Hell yeah. I'd like to see a network of distributed power like a mesh system of micro-grids, sort of like how the internet is a network of thousands of nodes. That's more empowering to individuals and communities, and less vulnerable to cyber attacks. The power company would rather pipe power to the city from gigantic installations.

You're talking about net metering, where people get paid for excess power they generate. That's definitely a cost benefit. Power companies in CA have a monopoly on their respective grids, but not a monopoly on power generation. Since they are publicly held monopolies, they can't discriminate on who they buy power from. Grid linked rooftop solar flows like water to your nearest neighbor sucking power, just like a homeowner pumping water into the water main. But, yeah, someone needs to pay to maintain transmission lines.

Your comments were very accurate and I appreciate them.
The term "disruptive technology" is very interesting because in both your examples there was to my knowledge no "tax benefits" for NetFlix/car embryonic industries i.e. when it was first started. Unlike the "solar" tax benefits, "ethanol" benefits there were none or at least NOT as beneficial as what the solar industry has gained. Also the public education system was NOT promoting auto industry over horse and buggy.
Again these educational costs have never been calculated in the cost of "solar panel" industry.
In other words, there was little if any public awareness of the car vs horse/buggy debate much less tax expenditures for public education as we have
today with all education systems pushing solar as counter to "global warming".
These costs to be honest must be considered if a fair comparison of a "disruptive technology" is being made.
Finally your point about transmission lines is valid. Has that cost been calculated into the "savings" of solar panels"?

 

[Listening]

I see no links to your complete and utter bullshit. C'mon moron. You can do better than that can't you? Waving your hands and pulling numbers out of your ass might be enough for twits like you but we adults need more.

how the government shutdown costs money - Google Search

Pick your own link. There are so many. Any total and complete drooling idiot moron could do such a simple search. Too bad it was way beyond your meager talent. No wonder you're frustrated.

Yes, and you'll get all the bullshit that you dine on nightly.

Fuck, you are stupid.

Still don't know shit about downholing Chlorine ?

Asswipe.

You said:
Fuck, you are stupid.

Still don't know shit about downholing Chlorine ?

I said: Downholing Chlorine? I admit, there are two areas where you are the expert. Downholing and Cornholing. Congratulations on your remarkable achievement.

Was this your attempt at humor ?

Didn't work.

Yes, you don't know shit about what you mouthing off about.

Government shutdowns cost money: The newest in the liberal line of bullshit eats.

That's funny, the two Republicans I showed it to laughed.

They were laughing at you.

Wake up dickweed.

 

[Listening]

Good god the conservative response to this thread, while not surprising, is still very pathetic. You people are so unreal lol. You can't swallow your pride for 30 seconds and just admit this was a good thing? Sure it isn't something worthy enough for Obama to gloat about, but you can't even admit it was even a small good thing. You just remain in denial like children. Sorry, but yes most of you are reacting to this thread like children.

You want to take a whack at the IRR calculation..Mr. Mouth.

Please give it a shot.

Still waiting asswipe.

So essentially you're asking me to, on my own, replicate the results of this report and spell it out how it came to that conclusion?

Tell me, if you were me, would you do something like that? Would you do all that economic calculation just because some asshole (you) online can't come up with their own argument against it?

Actually, I know the answer....I've already posted the range.

I just want to know if you realize how stupid it is to claim a 5 billion dollar profit on a 32 billion dollar investment over 22 years.

Here is some of the math:

5/32 * 100 = 15%.

Now spread that over 22 years and it's less than 1% per year (0.7%).

Now an IRR calc will probably show a negative interest rate because your returned principle has lost value.

So, go fuck yourself and have a day.

If you were an investment adviser...you'd pretty much be unemployable.

You're not an investment adviser and you're unemployable.

Let's see your math, turdboy.

You obviously based that on some spreadsheet you ran.

Or were you just doing what you normally do: Talk out your ass ?

 

[healthmyths]

You want to take a whack at the IRR calculation..Mr. Mouth.

Please give it a shot.

Still waiting asswipe.

So essentially you're asking me to, on my own, replicate the results of this report and spell it out how it came to that conclusion?

Tell me, if you were me, would you do something like that? Would you do all that economic calculation just because some asshole (you) online can't come up with their own argument against it?

Actually, I know the answer....I've already posted the range.

I just want to know if you realize how stupid it is to claim a 5 billion dollar profit on a 32 billion dollar investment over 22 years.

Here is some of the math:

5/32 * 100 = 15%.

Now spread that over 22 years and it's less than 1% per year (0.7%).

Now an IRR calc will probably show a negative interest rate because your returned principle has lost value.

So, go fuck yourself and have a day.

If you were an investment adviser...you'd pretty much be unemployable.

You're not an investment adviser and you're unemployable.

Let's see your math, turdboy.

You obviously based that on some spreadsheet you ran.

Or were you just doing what you normally do: Talk out your ass ?

There is no spreadsheet needed here if you understand 4th grade arithmetic.
$5 billion (profit) divided by $ 32 billion investment equals 15.63% for 22 years.
Now divide 15.63% return over 22 years and it's 0.71% per year...

Now does this make sense? The government gets a return of less then 1% per year?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Projected? Lol. It's already cost the taxpayers billions and the government is trillions in the red.

 

[Listening]

Still waiting asswipe.

So essentially you're asking me to, on my own, replicate the results of this report and spell it out how it came to that conclusion?

Tell me, if you were me, would you do something like that? Would you do all that economic calculation just because some asshole (you) online can't come up with their own argument against it?

Actually, I know the answer....I've already posted the range.

I just want to know if you realize how stupid it is to claim a 5 billion dollar profit on a 32 billion dollar investment over 22 years.

Here is some of the math:

5/32 * 100 = 15%.

Now spread that over 22 years and it's less than 1% per year (0.7%).

Now an IRR calc will probably show a negative interest rate because your returned principle has lost value.

So, go fuck yourself and have a day.

If you were an investment adviser...you'd pretty much be unemployable.

You're not an investment adviser and you're unemployable.

Let's see your math, turdboy.

You obviously based that on some spreadsheet you ran.

Or were you just doing what you normally do: Talk out your ass ?

There is no spreadsheet needed here if you understand 4th grade arithmetic.
$5 billion (profit) divided by $ 32 billion investment equals 15.63% for 22 years.
Now divide 15.63% return over 22 years and it's 0.71% per year...

Now does this make sense? The government gets a return of less then 1% per year?

You missed post #140.....

We agree down to the second decimal (I showed 0.71%...which is probably to many sigfigs).

However, it does not matter since people like Billylapflapper and RDead don't have a fucking clue as to what this means.

They just hear their masters speak, piss all over themselves, and start looking for a private place to jack-off in celebration.

 

[healthmyths]

So essentially you're asking me to, on my own, replicate the results of this report and spell it out how it came to that conclusion?

Tell me, if you were me, would you do something like that? Would you do all that economic calculation just because some asshole (you) online can't come up with their own argument against it?

Actually, I know the answer....I've already posted the range.

I just want to know if you realize how stupid it is to claim a 5 billion dollar profit on a 32 billion dollar investment over 22 years.

Here is some of the math:

5/32 * 100 = 15%.

Now spread that over 22 years and it's less than 1% per year (0.7%).

Now an IRR calc will probably show a negative interest rate because your returned principle has lost value.

So, go fuck yourself and have a day.

If you were an investment adviser...you'd pretty much be unemployable.

You're not an investment adviser and you're unemployable.

Let's see your math, turdboy.

You obviously based that on some spreadsheet you ran.

Or were you just doing what you normally do: Talk out your ass ?

There is no spreadsheet needed here if you understand 4th grade arithmetic.
$5 billion (profit) divided by $ 32 billion investment equals 15.63% for 22 years.
Now divide 15.63% return over 22 years and it's 0.71% per year...

Now does this make sense? The government gets a return of less then 1% per year?

You missed post #140.....

We agree down to the second decimal (I showed 0.71%...which is probably to many sigfigs).

However, it does not matter since people like Billylapflapper and RDead don't have a fucking clue as to what this means.

They just hear their masters speak, piss all over themselves, and start looking for a private place to jack-off in celebration.

No I didn't miss your very thorough explanation but the idiot said it took a "spreadsheet" and i just wanted him to know he needed to revisit his 4th simple arithmetic! Idiots like him are so completely clueless especially when it comes to simple math!
He is definitely part of the group Gruber called "Stupidity of American Voter"!
That can't even do simple arithmetic!