[verzali]

I've read through his thesis on his blog. There are several flaws in his analysis. The most glaring is in the cost of natural gas, for which he uses the most pessimistic value possible (that during the Ukraine war shortages) and then compares it to the most optimistic price of solar. A fairer comparison would take the cost of production and shipping of gas (which is very cheap) and compare that to the cost of synthetic gas. But if you do that synthetic gas is always more expensive than natural gas. Furthermore, many of his cost assumptions rely on government subsidies. Yes, it is possible to get cheap synthetic gas if the government subsidises it. But no, this is not a scalable product.

Even if you ignore this problem, his thesis still only makes sense if we live in a world which massively overbuilds solar panels. Some of this other pieces talk about covering the world's oceans in solar panels, which, frankly, makes little overall economic sense.

[wrsh07]

When you're projecting future costs of solar, you should be using very optimistic estimates, right?

[verzali]

Yes, but you should also use realistic prices for gas. Especially for a future in which abundant solar has driven down demand for gas.

[caminante]

You can. Your investors won't. They'll use conservative to median estimates. Doing otherwise is negligent or misleading.