Originally posted by deathbait:I wish you guys would stop using prices from other countries as an argument that the sg gov is charging too much.
It's not like we have the same resources or suppliers. Next you'll demand to know why we need to recycle water.
And here's an important concept it's time you learnt. If the gov was earning more than another gov on a utility, there is no reason to believe the government should ABSORB the price hike of raw materials just because it was earning more.
Let's pretend we're actually old enough to understand why comparing apples with pears is wrong despite the fact that they are both fruits.
So you think the huge Profits made by Singapore power is not due to overcharging its citizens? Which company can give you 20% return on equity in such a stable industry like utlities? SBS comfort Delgro only yields 6% and SMRT yields 9% and SMRT is regarded as having very high returns.
1) my point was that you guys are quoting "new" evidence where there is none. Nothing has changed, but you guys are fallaciously using "new developments" as supporting evidence
2) IF you are indeed concerned about the government making too much from power, consider this. To maintain their current budget, cutting energy prices will lead to a bump in taxes elsewhere. I swear you guys wear blinders.
3) Let's be symmetrical here. Who's paying for progress packages? I don't hear any thanks. All I hear are complaints that it should be more. It's like a schoolyard in here.
4) You guys love talking about the poor. The rich use much more power than the poor. Consider this a tax relief for the poor you speak of so fondly.
Originally posted by deathbait:1) my point was that you guys are quoting "new" evidence where there is none. Nothing has changed, but you guys are fallaciously using "new developments" as supporting evidence
2) IF you are indeed concerned about the government making too much from power, consider this. To maintain their current budget, cutting energy prices will lead to a bump in taxes elsewhere. I swear you guys wear blinders.
3) Let's be symmetrical here. Who's paying for progress packages? I don't hear any thanks. All I hear are complaints that it should be more. It's like a schoolyard in here.
4) You guys love talking about the poor. The rich use much more power than the poor. Consider this a tax relief for the poor you speak of so fondly.
Suggest you attack the issues head on instead of digressing and distorting.
Undeniable facts of the case, Singapore Power has a Return on Equity (ROE) of 20%, while OCBC bank has a ROE of 15%.
Singapore Power charges 8.75 cents more per kilowatt hour as compared to an Australian Power company.
Originally posted by eagle:I apologize if I caused some misunderstanding earlier. I mean the solar cells might one day be cheaper than electricity from oil. Disregard the mass production part.
Well, the government is subsidizing the research to bring down the costs of production. I would say that it is better in the long run than blindly subsidizing a technology that is still rather high costs as of now. And solar trees are things envisioned by a certain govt agency (I forgot name at the moment), the one which is subsidizing the research.
Instead of finding more ways to generate energy, another way would be to ensure less energy being consumed. The things Singapore are doing can be considered rather interesting, but whether other countries are doing better in this area, I have not yet researched enough to comment. I'm currently doing a report on sustainable development (which includes energy). Perhaps I can post it when my team finishes it?
With today technology, the production of solar panel uses electricity generated from fuel oil. Thus the cost of producing the solar panel goes up when oil price rises. Thus it is difficult to drastically bring down the cost of producing solar panel. We need to find new way, new material, cheaper way to convert solar energy to electricity.
Will like to see your report on the Sustainable Development (including energy) in due course.
I believe your report will cover something global.
In Singapore, due to the physical environment, limited land and sea mass, many forms of renewable energy cannot be implemented effectively or meaningfully eg wind energy, wave energy, tidal energy, etc. This is one of the reason why government is concentrating on research into solar energy, which is in abundant although we may not be able to effectively implement it in large scale due to limited land mass. Give a guess when Singapore can install a “true 1MW solar power plant!”.
Originally posted by pisces8:With today technology, the production of solar panel uses electricity generated from fuel oil. Thus the cost of producing the solar panel goes up when oil price rises. Thus it is difficult to drastically bring down the cost of producing solar panel. We need to find new way, new material, cheaper way to convert solar energy to electricity.
Will like to see your report on the Sustainable Development (including energy) in due course.
I believe your report will cover something global.
In Singapore, due to the physical environment, limited land and sea mass, many forms of renewable energy cannot be implemented effectively or meaningfully eg wind energy, wave energy, tidal energy, etc. This is one of the reason why government is concentrating on research into solar energy, which is in abundant although we may not be able to effectively implement it in large scale due to limited land mass. Give a guess when Singapore can install a “true 1MW solar power plant!”.
The amount of electricity used by solar panels production is not any less than the amount used in RAM or other silicon based transistors production. Having worked in a silicon based company before, I can safely say that electricity bills are not as high a cost when you divide it over the total possible number of units that can be produced. Most of the costs come in the form of labour and machines maintenance.
My report's concentration has to be largely within Singapore. The basis is not only on finding cheaper sources of energy, but also, ways to reduce usage of energy.
all the pay increments used to offset inflation. btw hi lao ying.
Aya the earth is going to die soon.
So why not spend all your money b4 we all dies LOL
Originally posted by bryanw:all the pay increments used to offset inflation. btw hi lao ying.
hallo
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Suggest you attack the issues head on instead of digressing and distorting.
Undeniable facts of the case, Singapore Power has a Return on Equity (ROE) of 20%, while OCBC bank has a ROE of 15%.
Singapore Power charges 8.75 cents more per kilowatt hour as compared to an Australian Power company.
i'm not dodging the issue
fortunately for me, I have the ability(you seemingly lack) to look at the whole big picture. I don't zero in on a single speck on the budget report and start curve fitting.
If the gov does not get money from source A, it needs to get it from source B. Guess what source B could be? Certainly something new you can complain about.
You refused to compare countries with companies before, so why start now? I agreed previously it's better to compare countries with countries. Let's start with the countries you like to list as examples. Hong kong and australia. I notice you're really good at digging up spreadsheets. Go on, dig up the entire gov budget instead of just one item. You'll see that while our energy costs may be higher, other aspects of taxes will be lower.
A government has to get money. The money has to come from somewhere. Stop focusing on an irrelevent issue and look into the bigger picture. Is there a REASON the costs of energy is higher here than elsewhere? Consider lurking variables. Honestly, you remind me of the boss in dilbert.
Of course the government has to get money somehow. They need to further raise their already highest-in-the-world pay for such a profession.
Originally posted by deathbait:i'm not dodging the issue
fortunately for me, I have the ability(you seemingly lack) to look at the whole big picture. I don't zero in on a single speck on the budget report and start curve fitting.
If the gov does not get money from source A, it needs to get it from source B. Guess what source B could be? Certainly something new you can complain about.
You refused to compare countries with companies before, so why start now? I agreed previously it's better to compare countries with countries. Let's start with the countries you like to list as examples. Hong kong and australia. I notice you're really good at digging up spreadsheets. Go on, dig up the entire gov budget instead of just one item. You'll see that while our energy costs may be higher, other aspects of taxes will be lower.
A government has to get money. The money has to come from somewhere. Stop focusing on an irrelevent issue and look into the bigger picture. Is there a REASON the costs of energy is higher here than elsewhere? Consider lurking variables. Honestly, you remind me of the boss in dilbert.
Last I heard the profits from Singapore Power is not part of the Singapore government budget, the profits from Singapore Power goes directly to Temasek.
Originally posted by pisces8:I think we can be enlightened by looking a little bit more into the link introduced by TCH05.
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____23939.aspx
"A Formula for LNG Pricing" by Gary Eng, Independent Consultant,
A report that explores the relationship between liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices and oil prices in the Pacific Basin, and suggests a formula relating the price of imported LNG in NZ to the price of oil.
Stop trying to convince them. What they will do is end up talking about the definition of correlation like how people will talk in a maths discussion forum. And my guess is that Eagle might even considering pulling out some formula from his high school text book to teach us about coefficent of correlations.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I thought we use Natural Gas to generate our electricity?
How come electricity is pegged to oil?
As we can see, Maurizio13 is the one who asked the questions about why LNG powered electricity prices are moving in tandem with oil price and he even went as far as quoting us a bunch of charts to prove there are no correlationship between both.
This is a quote from an article which might be worth reading if you are really interested on how LNG pricing work.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/lngmarket.html
"Costs of liquefaction, shipping, and regasification have declined over time, lowering costs to producers. Since the LNG market is primarily driven by long-term contracts with pricing mechanisms pegged to petroleum products, however, lower operating costs do not necessarily translate into lower LNG prices, at least in the short term"
Actually I am clueless about why Eagle is so interested to focus his argument on PLNG = A+B×PCrudeOil being some elementary maths equation, when I have already shown him that this something which is being used by the industry to determine the price of LNG, and not some cheap talk taken from forums.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Suggest you attack the issues head on instead of digressing and distorting.
Undeniable facts of the case, Singapore Power has a Return on Equity (ROE) of 20%, while OCBC bank has a ROE of 15%.
Singapore Power charges 8.75 cents more per kilowatt hour as compared to an Australian Power company.
What are exactly are you tying to prove when comparing the ROE of OCBC (a public listed bank) and Singapore Power (a government owned power station)?
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Last I heard the profits from Singapore Power is not part of the Singapore government budget, the profits from Singapore Power goes directly to Temasek.
you can't have it both ways
either you treat temasek as seperate from the gov and stop bashing the gov for it's failings, or you treat temasek as part of the gov.
You can't seperate and join them at will just because it makes your current point.
Originally posted by deathbait:you can't have it both ways
either you treat temasek as seperate from the gov and stop bashing the gov for it's failings, or you treat temasek as part of the gov.
You can't seperate and join them at will just because it makes your current point.
Huh?
Who's having it both ways?
Haven't I ALWAYS propounded the fact that Temasek is a government linked organisation with profit motives?
Whose separating and joining them at will?
How I wish reality in the real world is like your brain, a binary bit (1) for ON and a (0) for off?
It would have been much simpler explaining things to folks like you.
By the way, according to your logic, is Singapore democratic or communistic?
Originally posted by TCH05:
Stop trying to convince them. What they will do is end up talking about the definition of correlation like how people will talk in a maths discussion forum. And my guess is that Eagle might even considering pulling out some formula from his high school text book to teach us about coefficent of correlations.
As we can see, Maurizio13 is the one who asked the questions about why LNG powered electricity prices are moving in tandem with oil price and he even went as far as quoting us a bunch of charts to prove there are no correlationship between both.
This is a quote from an article which might be worth reading if you are really interested on how LNG pricing work.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/lngmarket.html
"Costs of liquefaction, shipping, and regasification have declined over time, lowering costs to producers. Since the LNG market is primarily driven by long-term contracts with pricing mechanisms pegged to petroleum products, however, lower operating costs do not necessarily translate into lower LNG prices, at least in the short term"
Actually I am clueless about why Eagle is so interested to focus his argument on PLNG = A+B×PCrudeOil being some elementary maths equation, when I have already shown him that this something which is being used by the industry to determine the price of LNG, and not some cheap talk taken from forums.
Very simple to prove if your equation is right, just put the figures from the graph to your equation.
There were some points in your graph where the price of oil is spiking and the price of natural gas was dipping.
Does the formula provide exactly the same price as it was stated in the graph?
Yes or no?
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Huh?
Who's having it both ways?
Haven't I ALWAYS propounded the fact that Temasek is a government linked organisation with profit motives?
Whose separating and joining them at will?
How I wish reality in the real world is like your brain, a binary bit (1) for ON and a (0) for off?
It would have been much simpler explaining things to folks like you.
By the way, according to your logic, is Singapore democratic or communistic?
you JUST SAID IT
oh my god you're dense
"Last I heard the profits from Singapore Power is not part of the Singapore government budget, the profits from Singapore Power goes directly to Temasek." -maurizio
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Very simple to prove if your equation is right, just put the figures from the graph to your equation.
There were some points in your graph where the price of oil is spiking and the price of natural gas was dipping.
Does the formula provide exactly the same price as it was stated in the graph?
Yes or no?
If you are asking me this question, it is obvious that your understanding of correlation and equation is limited by what you have studied in your secondary E-maths. Even that, I suspect that you dont even quite understand what you have studied in class.
I think it is easier for me to show you how an empty vessel looks and sounds like than to explain to you what is correlation. So look yourself in the mirror and tell me what you see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
Originally posted by TCH05:
If you are asking me this question, it is obvious that your understanding of correlation and equation is limited by what you have studied in your secondary E-maths. Even that, I suspect that you dont even quite understand what you have studied in class.
I think it is easier for me to show you how an empty vessel looks and sounds like than to explain to you what is correlation. So look yourself in the mirror and tell me what you see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
I'm glad you took some time to look up correlation finally. Here's an extra website to clear doubts:
http://www.graphpad.com/articles/interpret/corl_n_linear_reg/correlation.htm
Originally posted by eagle:I'm glad you took some time to look up correlation finally. Here's an extra website to clear doubts:
http://www.graphpad.com/articles/interpret/corl_n_linear_reg/correlation.htm
I am glad that you are slightly smarter than Maurizio13.
Originally posted by deathbait:you JUST SAID IT
oh my god you're dense
"Last I heard the profits from Singapore Power is not part of the Singapore government budget, the profits from Singapore Power goes directly to Temasek." -maurizio
OMG!
You are daft!
Maybe you can show us that the government gets it's budget from Temasek?
Originally posted by deathbait:
"fortunately for me, I have the ability(you seemingly lack) to look at the whole big picture. I don't zero in on a single speck on the budget report and start curve fitting.
If the gov does not get money from source A, it needs to get it from source B. Guess what source B could be? Certainly something new you can complain about."
zzzz my online gaming how?!
Originally posted by TCH05:
If you are asking me this question, it is obvious that your understanding of correlation and equation is limited by what you have studied in your secondary E-maths. Even that, I suspect that you dont even quite understand what you have studied in class.
I think it is easier for me to show you how an empty vessel looks and sounds like than to explain to you what is correlation. So look yourself in the mirror and tell me what you see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
So what you are telling us is that the equation between oil and natural gas has some aspects of correlation and that both have negative covariance?
Then I would agree with what you said 100%.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
So what you are telling us is that the equation between oil and natural gas has some aspects of correlation and that both have negative covariance?
Then I would agree with what you said 100%.
Please tell us how much do you know about negative covariance in the context of our discussion, just to make sure you know what exactly you are talking about.
Plus, how on earth can you suddenly talk about -ve covariance when I am talking about empty vessel, not to mention coming from someone who can only see correlation in a straightline graph.
You sound very much like Eagle, you know?
Originally posted by TCH05:
Please tell us how much do you know about negative covariance in the context of our discussion, just to make sure you know what exactly you are talking about.
Plus, how on earth can you suddenly talk about -ve covariance when I am talking about empty vessel, not to mention coming from someone who can only see correlation in a straightline graph.
You sound very much like Eagle, you know?
Shouldn't you know better?
What's the point of me explaining to you?
When I know very well that you will not accept my explanation.
You being such an authority in correlations and statistics.
And you need me to explain S.D., variances and covariances to you?
If you have impromtu knowledge, go google it.
Is it?
Ever heard the adage, "great minds think alike".