
Solar Now Produces a Better Energy Return on Investment Than Oil - edgarvm
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/12/19/solar-now-produces-a-better-energy-return-on-investment-than-oil/
======
Animats
Don't worry about the political issues. Wall Street will follow the ROI
numbers, and money will be available for power sources with good ROI. Oil is
on the way out. Coal isn't coming back, either. Peabody Coal, the biggest coal
company in the world, went bust earlier this year. Nobody wants to build new
coal plants. They're huge headaches to operate compared to natural gas plants.

~~~
hyperbovine
> They're huge headaches to operate compared to natural gas plants.

Ahem: that's because of "political issues". You should remain very worried
(and vigilant) about the direction of energy policy under the incoming
administration.

~~~
tlb
Right, coal plants are expensive mainly because of the scrubbers required to
reduce sulfur emissions (which caused acid rain through the 1970s). A
government committed to eliminating "burdensome" regulations could make coal
power extremely cheap again.

~~~
extra88
Even if the federal government substantially changes its position, many states
have their own clean air laws and the courts are open to states suing other
states they are "downwind" from.

~~~
klipt
What if Trump fills the courts with pro-coal judges?

~~~
extra88
Federal judges serve a long time, there may still be some picked by the first
Bush on the bench. One president, hopefully with only one term, can't have
that big an impact on the entire federal judiciary. And federal judges have
their liberal and conservative tendencies but they tend to be pretty non-
partisan.

------
ryao
"efforts made to slow this transition by Trump and others in his
administration should be seen as a protectionist, nonsensical, and amoral top-
down defense of the harmful fossil fuel industry."

As a solar panel owner, I want to know, is this a response to the tax credit
going away or is there something else of which I am not aware? If solar is
able to stand on its own, the tax credit would seem to have served its
purpose. The discontinuity in the level of feasibility when it goes away will
not be fun, but I thought that people expected that to happen when it
eventually does go away.

~~~
ghouse
Oil, gas, and coal enjoy their own subsidies. Both direct and indirect.
Increasing these subsidies for fossil fuels will slow the transition.

~~~
CountSessine
I always hear these vague allusions to oil and gas subsidies, but never
concrete examples. In fact, we actually tax the hell out of oil and gas at
retail, so it seems a bit strange that we would actually be subsidizing it at
the same time.

What kind of/magnitude of subsidies does oil and gas enjoy?

~~~
smallnamespace
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States)

$3.2bn / year for fossil fuels, about half of what went to renewables

~~~
ajss
Looking at the gross subsidy is misleading. Federal gas tax revenues alone are
about $35bn/yr.

~~~
smallnamespace
The excise tax is intended to pay for transportation infrastructure though,
not to disincentivize gasoline consumption.

~~~
ajss
Whatever the intentions of the people imposing the tax, the effect is to
disincentivize gas consumption. My point is, if the government taxes certain
activities by $x and subsidises the same activity by $y, quoting only $y
doesn't give the full story.

~~~
Dylan16807
As far as I know gas tax isn't paid by the producers, but sure we can combine
gas producers and users for this discussion. Money taken or given to either
one has the same effect on the demand for gas production.

When that $x in taxes is paying for the infrastructure used, then the gas
producers/users are actually getting $y+x from the government. The $x, being a
service charge, cancels out, and the only thing left is $y. $y is the
difference between the world we live in vs. a world where the government paid
no special attention to the industry. It's the most important number.

~~~
ajss
Even granting your argument, if the government takes $x as a service charge
for infrastructure, and subsidises by $y, that would be a net subsidy of $y,
not $y+$x.

But $x is not a service charge. It bares no relation to the amount of anything
used. They can't opt out of the road part of the service charge and build
their own roads. The tax is not hypothecated. Whatever the rhetoric of
politicians, it doesn't bare any resemblance to a service charge.

~~~
Dylan16807
> that would be a net subsidy of $y, not $y+$x.

That's exactly what I was arguing, yes. That $y is important and $x is
irrelevant.

> They can't opt out of the road part of the service charge and build their
> own roads.

That has no real bearing on the economics of the situation. Paying $x to the
government for roads and paying $x to a private contractor for roads work the
same way. That's why the net subsidy is $y.

If there is a tax that's applied specifically to gas companies that _isn 't_
directly paying for infrastructure they use, then that tax can be subtracted
from the subsidies. But the gas tax doesn't fit that bill; if anything it
undercharges.

~~~
ajss
> If there is a tax that's applied specifically to gas companies that isn't
> directly paying for infrastructure they use, then that tax can be subtracted
> from the subsidies. But the gas tax doesn't fit that bill; if anything it
> undercharges.

The gas tax is only one of many taxes that these companies pay - you have to
sum all their subsidies and subtract all their taxes. That's the point. If
you're not doing that, comparisons with subsidies to other industries are
going to meaningless.

~~~
Dylan16807
You subtract the taxes specific to the industry. Not all their taxes. Are
there any such taxes?

~~~
ajss
I subtract all their taxes. If Exxon pays $100bn/yr in various normal taxes,
and the government pays them $1bn/yr in fossil fuel subsidies, that's a net
subsidy of -$99bn/yr.

How can it be a fair representation of their situation to only say they
receive $1bn/yr in subsidy?

~~~
Dylan16807
Because something like income tax is a given. We're not comparing against a
world with no government. We're comparing against a situation where they get
no _special_ attention. You can use whatever word you want for it, but if a
company pays half as much tax as everyone else that's a big deal.

You're right to say that it's not fair to only list the $1bn. It should be put
in context of the $100bn of normal taxes. But reducing it to "$99bn" is not a
fair representation either. It doesn't tell you if they otherwise would have
paid 100 or 200.

~~~
ajss
I'm quite happy to accept the reporting of both gross taxes and gross
subsidies. My objection is to only comparing the gross subsidies.

------
sandworm101
The per-watt numbers may sound great, but these are still apples and oranges
energy sources. While there are some area where one can certainly replace the
other (electrical grids etc) there are others (shipping) where the gap remains
monumental. In terms of energy density (35ish MJ/L) and storage (a box) diesel
fuels look to remain king for a while.

One downside of cheap solar might be a drop in crude prices, resulting in its
more frivolous use. I'd hate to see improvements in shipping meant to conserve
fuel, and thereby lower carbon emissions, be set aside once fuel becomes cheap
again. We need to watch for this and, perhaps, get regs in place to ensure it
is burnt as sparingly as possible.

~~~
floatrock
Something like a quarter of US energy consumption is in transportation. As you
mentioned, the storage density of electricity still far lags behind petroleum.
It also takes an hour at a supercharger to "fill up" an electric car vs. a few
minutes at a pump. Hydrogen and biofuels (in the US) are generally seen as
energy sinks (they take more energy to produce than they give off), but what
they lose in conversion they make up for in suitability towards a
transportation fuel.

The point is transportation is a tricky application for renewables, and the
amount of storage needed to make it work is mind-boggling huge, even assuming
decades of compounding growth.

According to LLNL [1], the US consumption of energy in transportation is 27.7
quads. A quads is a measure of a lot of kWh. Specifically, 27.7 quads is
8,118,068,643 MWh.

Tesla's gigafactory is slated to produce 35 GWh worth of battery storage
production per year at full capacity (slated for 2018) [2].

So, our annual energy consumption in transportation alone is 8,120,000 GWh,
and our largest factory will, in two years, produce about 35 GWh per year
worth of capacity.

Lets assume some compounding magic and imagine the gigafactory will be only
the first of many self-replicating automated tesla factories. Say we grow our
capacity at 5% every year... after two decades, in 2038, that puts annual
capacity at 92 GWh, with a cumulative installed capacity of 1,250 GWh.

We're trying to hit 8,120,000 GWh. That's not gonna work.

Okay, lets assume instead of 5% growth, we somehow get 50% growth (we need
more gigafactories, but lets say we also get better at building batteries,
something closer to moore's law). Now after two decades of 50% growth, in 2038
our new annual storage production is 116,000 GWh, with something like 350,000
GWh of cumulative installed capacity.

Still short of 8,120,000 GWh.

(But this exponential growth is only starting to hockey-stick upwards at this
50% growth... we WOULD hit our goal within the third decade)

So, even assuming very optimistic conditions where the storage capacity
production is exponentially growing, consumption stays flat, and capacity does
not degrade once installed, electric cars still will barely make a dent in
petroleum usage in transportation after two decades.

I hope I made some error on my metaphorical napkin here (like a battery can be
recharged... if you have 365 Wh of annual consumption, that can technically be
serviced by a 1 Wh battery being used every day, right? So we don't quite need
to match the 8,120,000 number exactly, right? Maybe like 1/10 or 1/100th of
that?) Because if I didn't, that means we need an Apollo-level effort
sustained for a few decades to have a meaningful path off fossil fuels.

[1]:
[https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/...](https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2015.png)
[2]: [https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory](https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory)

~~~
spqr0a1
Your comment at the end is on the right track. Annual energy consumption isn't
the ideal metric because you can charge a car battery every day. 22,200 GWh is
all the storage capacity you'd need with daily charging.

~~~
floatrock
Okay, so you're saying we could do it if we had 22,200 GWh / day capacity,
cause if we can charge it up every day, that's *365 = 8,120,000 GWh annual
consumption.

So at 5% YoY growth, we hit it at about 2031.

Ok, so that's only a decade and a half of non-stop growth. Now we're talking
something plausible. 5% YoY for 15 years means someone will be making a lot of
money if that comes anywhere to be.

~~~
philipkglass
I'd say under 10,000 GWh/day required, because:

a) The LLNL flow charts are for primary energy, not energy services; an
electric vehicle can travel further on a megajoule of electricity than an
internal combustion vehicle can travel on a megajoule of diesel fuel.

b) Long distance shipping, airlines, and (probably) long distance trucking are
not going to replace liquid fuels with batteries. Either there's going to be
residual use of fossils for those smaller applications or electricity will be
used to make synthetic liquids; either way those segments aren't going to
contribute to battery requirements.

------
quotemstr
EROEI never made any sense to me. It seems to conflate two fundamentally
different notions: fuels as energy sources and fuels as energy storage
mediums. Who cares that petroleum EROEI might fall to less than one? Petroleum
in that scenario would still useful for vehicles. Even if you need two joules
to extract one joule of fossil fuel, this process might be economically viable
if your two joules are immovable (e.g., drawn from a nuclear-powered grid) and
your one joule is movable (e.g., in an airliner). There's no special
significance to EROEI.

~~~
VLM
pjc50 gets the large scale answer correct.

On the individual scale a company in a >1 ratio line of business sells energy,
which incidentally happens to be in the form of Jet-A or 93 octane but what
really matters is they sell energy that runs the other economic sectors.
Whereas a company in the <1 ratio line of business sells fascinating
petrochemical feedstocks, which incidentally happen to be flammable and could
be used as expensive fuels and they compete for needed energy with the rest of
the economy.

The ethanol debacle shows how important that is. Certainly aged 12 year crown
royal is not energetically feasible as engine fuel and that doesn't matter as
long as its affordable for drinking. The distillery produces human fuel, but
not energy, in fact its a net sink of energy. Likewise you can build a plant
to produce ethanol, and it will produce fuel, and as long as you don't worry
about energy or CO2 that's OK. Inevitably after its built someone will point
out that rather than importing 30 million barrels of crude oil energy per day,
if you want to run cars on ethanol we'll have to import and burn 60 million
barrels of crude oil energy per day and there will be freakouts.

Part of the confusion is in the old days it was only possible to
simultaneously produce both energy and fuel whereas we've burned the cheap oil
such that now we're going to be deciding to make industrial plants and
processes that produce energy OR fuel but often not both at the same time. In
the old days it was impossible for a refinery not to produce and sell both
fuel and energy at the same time...

~~~
quotemstr
Global EROEI decline doesn't seem a serius danger to me --- solar and nuclear
power are both abundant and available at modest cost. That 60 million barrels
of energy for input doesn't strike me as something that ought to lead to
freakouts. (Coal is available as well; of course, using it incurs significant
external costs.)

------
abalone
I'm all for solar but to be fair the source study for this was looking at the
economics of modules not deployments. Solar does have an inverse economies of
scale problem where the cheapest, most amenable sites are the first to get
solar farms. To scale it to be competitive with coal, nuclear, etc. you're
going to run into higher site acquisition costs and suboptimal conditions.
Worth the challenge to save our planet, obviously, but let's be honest about
it.

~~~
philipkglass
In _some_ countries there's a high enough population density and/or little
enough sunlight that land availability could prevent 100% solar electricity
even if storage were magically solved; Germany, the UK, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Taiwan come to mind.

Land isn't going to be a constraint in most countries. Solar resources, while
distributed unevenly, are _significantly_ more evenly distributed than fossil
or nuclear fuels, or even wind resources. See for example this map of
insolation in the US:
[http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2...](http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01.jpg)

In the continental US the very best solar resources are maybe ~7 kWh/m^2/day
and there's hardly anything below 3.5. Or to put it in terms of cities,
Seattle gets 58% as much annual insolation as sun-drenched Phoenix:
[http://www.i4at.org/lib2/solarrad.htm](http://www.i4at.org/lib2/solarrad.htm)

So it took _many_ historical performance:price doublings before unsubsidized
solar electricity got within shouting distance of fossil electricity in even
the sunniest places in the US, and then just one more to reach that threshold
across most of the country.

The technical and economic performance of wind/PV has already improved enough,
and has enough assured near-future improvements already in the pipeline, that
I'd say it would be destined to "eat the world" for electricity if storage
were a solved problem. But storage isn't a solved problem.

Most discoveries that get hyped as "battery breakthrough" by university press
offices aren't really breakthroughs, but there's so much research that there's
an abundance of riches even after you throw away the ~95% that looks bad on
slightly closer examination. Common problems with battery "breakthroughs" that
justify quick rejection: dependence on rare elements (lithium is reasonably
abundant; I mean things like tellurium, germanium, rhenium...), low cycle
life, effects demonstrated only at interfaces or in nanostructures without any
obvious path to bulk scaling. Among the remaining ~5% that looks interesting,
assuming the publications aren't fraudulent, I have little idea which ones
will end up industrially significant. Chemistry is a lot easier to model than
market success. There are also partial substitutions for electricity storage
that could displace and/or complement it: supergrids, demand response, thermal
buffering...

~~~
willholloway
What I am trying to understand is how is underground compressed air storage
not the solution to the energy storage problem. LightSail is doing this, I
don't see why others aren't too.

The tech is simple. Dig a hole in your backyard, put a large steel tank in it
with an air compressor and a small turbine generator.

Putting the tank underground vastly improves the safety of the system and
hides it. You can also derive heat from this process.

~~~
thinkcontext
Right now Lightsail is attempting to cross the startup death valley by first
selling its pressure vessel technology before tackling the more demanding
energy market. They recently announced a tractor trailer sized compressed
natural gas module. The idea is to get their costs down to where they can be
competitive in energy storage, its an open question on whether that is
possible.

Btw, their vessels are carbon fiber, not steel. And deriving heat is a problem
not a benefit. Every bit of heat that leaves the system is lost efficiency.

[http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/lightsail-energy-
la...](http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/lightsail-energy-launches-
lightstorer-gas-transport-module-targeting-breakthrough-economics-2165657.htm)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-storage-startup-
lightsail...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-storage-startup-lightsail-
plots-long-term-game-plan-1456110323)

~~~
hx87
> Every bit of heat that leaves the system is lost efficiency.

Storing air underground absorbs heat, or at least results in less heat loss
than storing it above ground.

------
newswriter99
In an attempt to clarify my previous point, everyone please feel free to
examine Exxon's 2040 outlook, which puts Nuclear, solar, wind and other
renewable energy sources at only 25% of all energy production by that time:
[http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-
outlook/hig...](http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-
outlook/highlights/)

~~~
hinkley

        By 2040 natural gas will meet 25 percent of energy demand.
        By 2040 nuclear and renewables will grow 50 percent 
        approaching 25 percent of energy demand.
        Oil will remain the world’s primary energy source,       
        fulfilling 1/3 of all demand.

------
module0000
Do any HN readers actually "invest" in oil? I think plenty of us _trade_ oil,
but who actually goes long in something that is so volatile in response to
things you have no control over(war, accidents, the list goes on)?

Oil's greatest investment potential is how _volatile_ it actually is. Look at
the charts for brent crude day-to-day, or jump back a step and look at the
crude ETFs(sco/uco/and-friends). There is a _lot of money_ to be made with
that much volatility.

Back to the original question, does anyone here actually invest(as in hold
long positions) in oil OR solar? If so, I am curious why you chose those
particular investment vehicles, since they are technically(as in looking at
the company's technical breakdown) bad long investments.

~~~
machiaweliczny
Could you explain why you think solar is bad long investment?

~~~
module0000
> Could you explain why you think solar is bad long investment?

Other emerging energy sources all ding the price of solar stocks. Eg...if
tomorrow a press release for "huge natural gas power plant opens in
California!" breaks, you get a (sometimes large) dip in all your solar
positions, despite no value being lost at all. I would sum it up as "solar
equity prices are affected by too many things other than their performance".

------
known
Not without Lithium-ion
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densitie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials)

~~~
patall
Well, hydrogen comes to mind. And power-to-gas. And running hydropower and
biomass plants only at high demand.

~~~
codecamper
If you think hydrogen fuel cells are a good way to go then please bid up PLUG
or FCEL, I'd love to see them higher so I can short one of them.

Power to gas is just more of the same "hydrogen" economy. correct?

I read a book about the hydrogen economy back in 2000. Thought it was a great
idea.

Then lithium ion batteries kicked hydrogen's butt.

------
thewhitetulip
Nothing will force companies to use Solar than high ROI. Google and Apple now
use Solar in a major way, with Tesla's cars and SolarCity's roofs, we are
living in exciting times.

The drop in Oil demand would mean the end of the OPEC bloc.

~~~
nl
_end of the OPEC bloc_

You might not have noticed, but OPEC is dead.

A combination of shale oil in the US, Saudi and US desire to the disrupt the
Russian oil-economy and Iran/Saudi rivalries mean OPEC can't set prices
anymore. The best they can do is try to restrict supply enough to stop them
going bust[1].

Even that isn't a sure thing anymore - no one can be sure that even that small
agreement will stick[2].

An Exxon/Russia agreement under the Trump presidency will bury OPEC. (Not sure
Exxon/Russia will be _better_ than OPEC, but OPEC won't be able to do anything
about it.)

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-01/opec-get-its-cartel-
mo...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-01/opec-get-its-cartel-mojo-back-to-
stop-its-members-going-broke/8082892)

[2] [http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Goldman-Flip-Flops-
Aga...](http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Goldman-Flip-Flops-Again-Now-
Sees-High-OPEC-Compliance.html)

~~~
module0000
> You might not have noticed, but OPEC is dead.

Are you sure? OPEC's November 30th deal moved _world_ oil prices drastically
in every direction. For a dead entity, they sure seem to exert change upon the
living.

PS: I'd love for OPEC to die also, but I think they are very much alive,
albeit less relevant than 20 years ago.

~~~
module0000
To add...look at yesterdays oil price movement within 10m of this article's
release: [http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/12/opec-oil-cuts-not-
structura...](http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/12/opec-oil-cuts-not-structural-
shift-gs/)

OPEC is still alive and well, and even speculating about their deal's success
is pushing prices wildly.

~~~
nl
That's exactly the same Goldman analysis I linked to. They revised prices by
$2.

This is not the OPEC who could move prices by 50% or credibly threaten to cut
off supply.

------
newswriter99
Not one mention of petrochemicals in this thread.

The main thing environmentalists (among others) seem to forget is that you
can't make plastic out of sunlight. Or air. Or by pedaling a bicycle.

Oil (and natural gas, especially in the US where petrochemical refineries use
it for ethane) will continue to be in demand if for no other reason than to be
used as a feedstock for plastics and a litany of other chems that make modern
life possible.

~~~
ninkendo
Petrochemicals are only 4% of the oil market:
[http://www.bpf.co.uk/Press/Oil_Consumption.aspx](http://www.bpf.co.uk/Press/Oil_Consumption.aspx)

If switching to solar from oil would eliminate 96% of our use of fossil fuels,
I'm pretty sure those "environmentalists" you refer to would still be happy.

But honestly whenever somebody brings up plastics in a discussion about
sustainable energy or climate change I always assume they just like being
contrarian.

~~~
newswriter99
I'm not doing it to be contrarian, apologies for the tone. I'm just trying to
point out that people tend to see political cartoons like the following:
[https://postimg.org/image/5zi56imjd/](https://postimg.org/image/5zi56imjd/)
As gospel. Without considering the fact that pipelines are both statistically
safer than road or rail transport. AND without considering that the oil and
gas is going to be used for more than just gasoline.

~~~
epistasis
You seem to be preemptively trying to head off an attitude that has not yet
been shown in this thread.

Petrochemicals that are not burned are not contributing to co2 emissions.
Also, there are other sources of those long carbon chains besides pumping them
out of the ground. And at such a tiny percentage of oil use, they are not a
big concern.

------
cm2187
What I would like to see is the comparison pre-subsidies for the RoI. I am not
convinced the author of the article reversed those.

------
dboreham
Except at night..

------
VikingCoder
Hahahaha, oh Kenaka. GET WITH THE TIMES, Kaneka!

Oh, I'd almost forgotten about that. Thanks for the laugh!

(Honestly, I have no idea what I'm talking about, I just thought it was funny
the one green diamond was lower than the other thingies.)

------
codecamper
Guys. It's embarrassing that this is a top article on Hacker News.

There is really no association between the price of oil & the price of solar.

Oil is an expensive form of energy because it is portable & used for
transportation. It competes with the price of lithium ion batteries.

Solar is for generating electricity. It competes with coal, gas, geo, hydro,
wind.

And don't come back at this with some pathetic reasoning that on some islands
or remote places idiots use generators. I say idiots because generators are
loud, smell, need maintenance and these days are probably quite a bit more
expensive than a solar + battery system.

~~~
the8472
This is about EROEI, not $

~~~
codecamper
that's all great & fine, but think of it like this:

Where is oil used? Cars. Trucks. Planes.

Will a solar panel on the top of a car ever power a car? No. You need
batteries.

It's the price of batteries vs. price of oil that we should be discussing.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The EROI for moving a car via PV solar is greater than moving a car via oil.
Oil loses that comparison even worse, since 80%+ of the energy is thrown away
as waste heat.

~~~
codecamper
Yes, the totally awesome end game is to have solar panels that charge your
car. But it isn't the price of solar that is standing in the way of electric
cars everywhere... it's the price of batteries.

I hear this thing about return of energy, etc. But this is nothing new, right?
Check out the oil sands project in Canada. Do you think the market cares about
how much energy is used to create something? No.. just the $.

In any case solar & oil are not related.

~~~
crpatino
> I hear this thing about return of energy, etc. But this is nothing new,
> right? Check out the oil sands project in Canada. Do you think the market
> cares about how much energy is used to create something? No.. just the $.

Ok, please stop and listen.

Economics, Government, the Public... they are all wrong. They got used to not
care about EROEI because at the begining of the Industrial Revolution it
literally didn't matter. I don't know the numbers for coal, but back when the
first oil wells were being digged, the EROEI of oil was ~100:1. It did not
matter how much it did cost to extract the stuff, just that you had access to
it and how fast you could come up with ways to turn that energy surplus into
value added (ergo, $$$).

Now, according to the article we are approaching the 10:1 barrier. That's
still pretty good, and you can still run an industrial civilization on top of
it, but it has become far from irrelevant. The problem is that all the
economic models in use today got created back when the stuff as much more
abundant and easier to produce.

If is as if there was a perverse Law of Moore that would cut transistor
density in half every 18 months. Everybody started with virtualization and
scripting languages and garbage collection, then C and C++ just sneaked under
everybody's radar. And now, you are here, bashing assembly hackers because
everybody knows that what's more important is programmer's time, not code
efficiency.

